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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1811 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

to act against the spirit, let alone the letter, of the law. We have systems in place to check these decisions. They go to the Auditor-General and they go to Mr Quinlan's standing committee. Neither of them detected any evidence that the law had been broken. We ended up with a situation where a mistake was made. The Chief Minister has apologised for that mistake.

Mr Stanhope made a comparison and said that this was like waiting for Godot. I do not know what his knowledge of English lit is like but it certainly is like waiting for Godot when you are waiting for the Labor Party's case. It is like waiting for something to happen. We have had three speeches now and we have not heard anything that we have not seen or heard in a press release. We have had a little bit of innuendo mixed up with a press release. I think it is actually more like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, and what we are up to is flick of the coin 65, kick her again; 66, kick her again; 67, kick her again; 68, kick her again. What happens in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? It just goes on and on and on. Mr Speaker, in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "We are wiser than we were, by having an error the less in our catalogue". The Labor Party should listen to this. The point, Mr Speaker, is that we have learnt from our error and we wish to correct it.

Mr Speaker, on 19 March 1998 Mr Stanhope said in this place that a new Labor Party - a Labor Party with a new approach - "will work willingly and cooperatively". In recent events we have seen political parties of all kinds across the country work willingly and cooperatively to rectify mistakes that were pointed out by courts. The Chief Minister has quoted several examples. In those parliaments people worked together, where mistakes were unintentionally made, to bring about a resolution.

Mr Stanhope's claims were quite bold, and understandably so, coming from a leader who back then probably believed that he could make a difference. Mr Stanhope also brought to this place a considerable background in civil liberties. As a prominent member of the Council for Civil Liberties, one would expect from him a high degree of probity and attention to process to ensure that the rights of others were protected.

Let us look at what civil liberties is about, Mr Speaker. Professor L.J. Cooray defines civil liberties in his book The Australian Achievement: From Bondage to Freedom. Among the elements that make up civil liberties, one of the key points is the right to a fair trial by a competent and independent court. Does Mr Stanhope believe that this is a fair trial by a competent and independent court? Can he, having moved this motion, sit in judgment as an independent court? Can he, with so much political gain to be had from this motion if it is successful, guarantee a fair hearing? Of course he cannot, because this is politics, and he has absolutely no interest in a fair hearing.

Mr Stanhope even chooses to ignore the speech. That is because he has no interest in an independent umpire. Let us contrast that, Mr Speaker, with, say, Mr Osborne's position. Mr Osborne has indicated that he will put his faith in an independent umpire, the Auditor-General, but Mr Stanhope will not.

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