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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1869 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the then Assembly was, at best, recklessly or, at worst, deliberately misled in relation to the beginnings of the now total collapse of that much vaunted Bruce Stadium deal. Everyone in the Assembly and the community was deliberately kept in the dark. The Chief Minister continued creating the impression that all was well, even when it had clearly come off the rails. It was kept quiet, not only during the election campaign but also right through the period when Kate Carnell had to face an election in this place for Chief Minister, because if that had been exposed in that crucial period the outcome of her election as Chief Minister might have been quite different.

Mr Speaker, those who are making decisions in relation to this matter this evening have to keep that in mind. There is a motive. There is a very clear motive. There is an understanding of the issues, and this issue forms part of this deception. This deception, Mr Speaker, is, again by itself, a good enough reason to dump Kate Carnell.

Mr Humphries talked about precedents. He raised the issue of what other parliaments do, but he was very careful, was Mr Humphries, not to tell us about those parliaments and whether or not they were majority governments or coalitions or some other sort of majority government - he was very careful not to tell us that - where Ministers can be protected, like Warren Entsch in the Federal Parliament who was protected by a majority government. Does Mr Humphries want us to set our standards that way, or does he want us to behave like the much-praised system, by him in particular, which produces minority governments and makes them more accountable? Methinks that Warren Entsch would not last too long in this place. That is an extremely important point in the context of the precedents which might have been set elsewhere.

Mr Humphries also raised the issue of some franchise fees which, on my understanding of his contribution, was a matter determined by the courts and was later dealt with by legislation in this place. Well, we have no courts to deal with this. We are the court on this matter. We are the ones who are going to have to determine the legality or otherwise, and the acceptability or otherwise, of this Chief Minister's actions. We must. There is nobody else to do it.

Mr Humphries drew some attention to some expenditure by the Department of Sport and Recreation. My last recollection of that was that the officer involved had acted against policy, against instructions and advice, and was subsequently removed from any area of authority in that department. In this case the officers concerned were acting in accordance with the policy of the Government.

Look; as Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne know from their experience in the police force, if unlawful behaviour is tolerated the unlawful behaviour becomes the norm, and the law-breakers move on to bigger and better excesses. Those are the facts of the matter when it comes to law-breakers. They know that from their police experience. If you leave it unattended to, it becomes the norm and it just gets worse. In other words, if you allow these now, you will be endorsing further unlawful behaviour, and you will be putting your name on all of the bungles and behaviour I have drawn attention to today. Do not put your name on these. It is not worth it.

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