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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1821 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

The nature of this motion of want of confidence goes to the very heart of the stability of the parliamentary system. I certainly have a particular interest in this aspect. If Ministers were to be vulnerable to a low standard of removal, the Assembly would quickly become ungovernable.

The Leader of the Opposition, by moving his motion, has laid serious charges against the Chief Minister. Members of this Assembly will fulfil the various roles of prosecution and defence, of course, and in the end all of us will have to sit in judgment upon the evidence provided. The task of the proponents of this motion, however, must be, firstly, to articulate the changes which allege that the Chief Minister's conduct is reprehensible and that the Chief Minister has failed her responsibility and, secondly, to produce evidence that the Chief Minister's conduct is reprehensible. Mere assertions, rhetoric or even circumstantial evidence will not be sufficient.

The nature of ministerial responsibility requires that Ministers account to the Assembly for the administration under their care, but it does not at all follow that every mistake made in their portfolios requires their dismissal. Dismissal must be based on a personal failing. Neglect, recklessness, ignorance of advice and misleading the Assembly are cases of personal failing. We must ask ourselves: Has the Chief Minister been guilty of any of these - neglect, recklessness, ignorance of advice, misleading the Assembly? I believe the answer to all four is no.

The current case does not disclose personal failure. It does display openness. It displays a desire to achieve an improvement in facilities. It displays a desire to minimise the cost to the ACT taxpayers, as has been mentioned in earlier debates. It does not reveal avarice. It does not reveal corruption. It does not reveal intent to break the law.

Members have a very difficult part to play today. We must exercise judgment; we must display responsibility; we must dispense justice. We must put away prejudice and we must put away any preconceived ideas. In deciding whether there is a case to answer, we must weigh up the evidence, and that evidence must be substantial. If we go lightly into this matter, we will be allowing incoming executives and the people of Canberra to be held to ransom.

The business of this Assembly and the smooth running of the ACT Government should not be lightly disrupted. Motions like this should not be lightly brought on. Their currency should not be debased by frivolous use. Executives should not be brought down except in exceptional circumstances. We should not show bad faith in removing Ministers for ulterior motives, such as destabilising our opponents or seeking a change of government. It is interesting to note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that of 104 motions of want of confidence moved in the House of Representatives not one has succeeded. We cannot say that they have all failed to succeed, because of majorities in the House of Representatives.

Mr Quinlan: Why not?

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