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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 2358 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

I think this is simply an attention grabber. He wants to create the taint. He wants to create the smell. He wants to force the people of Canberra to put up with something that does not exist. Mr Speaker, it is terrible.

What is even more terrible is the blatant toadying of the Leader of the Opposition, who is willing to suck up to Mr Kaine because they need his vote, in saying, "We will consider this". If Mr Stanhope thinks there is anything that indicates that there is official corruption in the ACT, he has the right and the protection of this place to stand up and say so, and he should. But what was Mr Stanhope's opening line? He said, "Well, I wasn't actually going to speak on this. The Labor Party hasn't a position on this. We are not sure what we are going to do". He then says to the Attorney-General, "How dare you criticise Mr Kaine for what he's doing". Mr Speaker, it is terrible.

Mr Stanhope's allusion was that there is some sort of corruption because we will not release some documents. Well, we have given them to the watchdog. How many watchdogs do you want? How many levels do you need to protect the special society that is Canberra? The Auditor-General has those documents. The Opposition knows that there are certain documents under certain categories that are given in-confidence, and we have processes and procedures in place to protect that confidence so that society can continue.

Who in their right mind would want to deal with a government that throws its private and commercial documents willy-nilly across an Assembly? Business and individuals are entitled to a level of protection, and certainty of that protection, but that is not what is before us here today. We have done the right thing. We have sent the Bruce Stadium documents to the Auditor-General. We have given them to the watchdog, and we will await that decision.

You have to consider the issue here, Mr Speaker. The issue here is that Mr Kaine's motion says that the Assembly has to note the need to legislate. Well, let us hear what the need is. Let us have the evidence that suggests, shows, alludes to or, hopefully, proves there was corruption because where it is found we will stamp it out. What we have is nothing but a hint. What we have is a smell that is turning into a bad odour in that Mr Kaine says that we need to give the ACT a dose of legislative chemotherapy to treat a problem that he cannot even prove exists. Now, that does not mean that we will ignore corruption where we find it. There are obviously instances where individuals will perform acts that are unacceptable. When they are caught they are prosecuted; they are dismissed or they are treated within the law. But, Mr Speaker, there is no such hint of an epidemic of corruption in the ACT. If there was we would all know of it. There is no allusion.

On behalf of the police, I would have to say that the Australian Federal Police is widely regarded across the country as a clean police force. It is already subjected to scrutiny by the Ombudsman pursuant to the Commonwealth's Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, Mr Speaker, and all police officers should be aggrieved. I hope the Opposition spokesperson for policing issues stands up and loudly makes his claims of support for the AFP, because Mr Kaine needs to hear that.

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