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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1856 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

what she was doing. But they have not presented any evidence to support that proposition, and I believe that the house is entitled to abandon that assertion if it is not backed up with evidence.

There are plenty of precedents for the other side of the coin, where Ministers do not resign in those circumstances. The most recent example is just a few days ago, when in the Commonwealth Parliament it was alleged that a public servant had defrauded the Department of Finance and Administration of something like $8m. The matter is still before the court. An $8.7m fraud is alleged.

Mr Moore: In an illegal act.

MR HUMPHRIES: In an illegal act - not just a breach of an administrative law but a breach of a criminal law. Curiously, the Labor colleagues of those opposite - - -

Mr Corbell: The public servant in this case was implementing the directions of the Government. What an absurd parallel!

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it is not an absurd parallel, Mr Corbell. The Labor colleagues of those opposite have not called for the resignation of Mr Fahey, the Minister for Finance. Yet here is a public servant breaking the law. Why is that Minister not responsible for that act? I take it that there is some reason why in those circumstances the Minister should not have to resign or be sacked.

Mr Stanhope: Yes.

MR HUMPHRIES: We have not heard those reasons yet in this debate, Mr Stanhope. We have not heard why you distinguish that kind of situation from this. After seven speakers in favour of this motion, I think we are entitled to know why those sorts of cases do not apply. But we have not yet heard the reasons. As I have said, there are no precedents available anywhere that I have been able to find, and I invite those opposite to complete the record. There are no precedents for Ministers resigning in these circumstances, and there are many precedents for Ministers not resigning in these circumstances. Will they please enlighten us with the precedent upon which they rely?

Let us assume, however, that they are still right; that there is this standard that is being applied. (Extension of time granted) The question now has to be asked: Has the ALP lived up to the standard itself when it has been in office in the ACT? Let us forget about other places. They might have lower standards than we do. In the ACT, do we have a standard which says that when a public servant breaks the law beneath a Minister the Minister resigns? We have gone back to look at the circumstances where the law has been broken in the past and public servants have been complicit in that, and we have tried to see what happened in periods of Labor administration. Members have already heard about the X-rated video tax. That was a tax that was enacted originally by Mr Kaine as Chief Minister and Treasurer in the Alliance Government. Incidentally, it was opposed, as I recall, by the Labor Party. When the Labor Party came to office, it decided the tax was not all that bad and kept collecting the tax and, as it turned out, the collection of that tax was illegal.

Mr Moore: Not by a legal opinion.

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