Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2170 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
the response. If I read it to the Chief Minister, she may accept the good sense of what she included in her response and give me that information about those figures. The Government says:
The Committee was concerned about the limited time and resources to attend to the issues associated with Bruce Stadium redevelopment. The Government believes that despite the large amount of information, previous disclosures, and the number of detailed briefings provided, no amount of additional time would have clarified any issues for the Committee as they are bent on criticising and impeding what has been a completely open and accountable process.
In terms of this completely open and accountable process, could you please explain to me all those issues that I have just raised?
There are a couple of issues in relation to this that it is probably appropriate to touch on. There is one issue in relation to the Estimates Committee report on the recommendations relating to Bruce that we have not really had an opportunity to talk about subsequent to the no-confidence motion the other night and the Government's defence of itself. The Government's defence of itself was, in effect, that the Public Service had failed it in relation to Bruce Stadium; that it simply was not aware what the law required of it; and that it was as a result of the actions of unnamed and unidentified public servants that this disaster occurred.
I notice, in that respect, that the Estimates Committee did suggest that it would be appropriate for us to have some understanding of whether or not any action had been taken under the Public Sector Management Act in relation to those grave failings that did occur. I do not know whether this is the appropriate opportunity, but I wonder whether the Chief Minister might be able to advise us whether, as a result of the grave failings of her officers, there has been any counselling, whether any officers have been relocated or whether any action at all has been taken.
I think this is a serious matter. It goes, in a way, to the point that Mr Quinlan raised earlier in relation to the Payroll Tax (Amendment) Bill. It goes to the same issue of what we expect of the Public Service. Of course, this is an issue that is relevant to the Chief Minister's Department and it is something that is relevant to this debate. Mr Quinlan asked for a one-day adjournment in relation to the Payroll Tax (Amendment) Bill. As we had received it quite late and had no time to consider its implications, he quite appropriately and reasonably asked whether it might be adjourned from yesterday until today. I have the Hansard here.
Ms Carnell: When I asked him, "Will you handle it today, Ted?", he said, "I do not know. It depends".
MR STANHOPE: He said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .