Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1807 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

On each of those two previous successful occasions the motion was against the Chief Minister and the Government. On this occasion the motion is against the Chief Minister. That is a very significant difference. It is a very significant difference indeed. We are arbitrating on the Chief Minister.

The first thing that will happen today is that we will vote on our confidence or otherwise in the Chief Minister. That will be the first vote. It may be the only one, but it will be the first vote. If that is carried there will then be other votes. A new Chief Minister will need to be elected. We can put aside this nonsense that we have seen hyped up last week about the fact that if the Chief Minister goes we all go; it is Mrs Carnell or Mr Stanhope. I do not think anybody swallows that, least of all the two leading contenders on that side.

Mr Humphries: Find out.

MR WOOD: We will find out. I know where I will put my money. I understand that some people have been ringing around assessing support and that sort of thing, beyond this chamber I might say. So that is nonsense. That is an empty threat. The Labor Opposition, in moving this motion, as Mr Stanhope has made clear, is making the point that this is about Mrs Carnell. If the motion is successful I have no doubt that Mr Stanhope will be a candidate, amongst other candidates. But the motion is against Mrs Carnell; it is not against the Government. So remember that. That is the first vote that we will have today. I might wish otherwise, and I will surely vote otherwise, but at the end of the day the ACT could still have a Liberal government, but with a different Chief Minister. So, those are the patterns of previous successful no-confidence motions, and I think we need to bear that in mind as we come to our decision later today. We are not proposing against the Government, and the nature of this no-confidence motion is really very, very important. The terms are much more significant than those other two motions.

This motion is about the Chief Minister and her style. The Bruce Stadium is the most monumental example of how that can lead to mistakes, of how that style can bring problems. There are many examples of that style in the last four years, the overstatements, the hype, the hyperbole; that projects will go well, and they do not always do that. The Chief Minister, it has been said by Mr Stanhope, quite clearly, would not come back to this Assembly. When the problems of the lack of private sector finance emerged, the Chief Minister would not come back to this Assembly. I believe the fact that the election was just around the corner was a very significant factor in that refusal. It would not do, with the image that was being created, to have to come back ahead of a vote of the community and say, "Well, we have mucked this up. It hasn't really worked".

We have heard a continuing series of justifications, of excuses, of arguments. I think we heard another one today. Mr Quinlan pointed out how the excuses had changed from week to week, although the one now, the strong one, the consistent one, generally seems to be that this was an unintentional technical breach by public servants. An unintentional technical breach. It is as though the office boy forgot to get a voucher when he went out and bought something with petty cash. They would have us believe it is at that sort of level.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .