Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3561 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
she knew that they had no expertise in the use of explosives. That single act is enough to warrant members' support for this motion.
The Government will say that the very mechanism by which this debate is proceeding has been debased by its overfrequent use in this place, and I reject that contention. Mr Rugendyke says that he is cautious because this is the third no-confidence motion we have moved in six months. There is a clear reason for that. Motions of want of confidence or censure are legitimate tools by which governments are called to account, particularly in jurisdictions where there is such an arrogant disregard for the obligation to be accountable as in this Territory under this Government. If governments are found wanting, they must face censure.
Mr Osborne has suggested that we are acting precipitantly in moving against the Chief Minister before the Auditor-General reports on another issue - the financial farce surrounding the Bruce Stadium redevelopment. I am concerned that Mr Osborne has declared his hand without hearing the argument. This is not a precipitant move. It is not something we do lightly. It is the only possible reaction to the scathing criticism of the coroner, and the Chief Minister's failure to act responsibly to the legitimate anger of the Canberra community.
Mr Speaker, the Government will maintain that no Minister can possibly be expected to know everything that occurs in the line areas of the departments and agencies for which he or she is responsible, but the coroner confirms that this whole project was conceived at the highest levels of government and driven from the Chief Minister's office by her closest advisers. She cannot use the defence that she simply did not know.
The Government will run the line that the Labor Party has moved this want of confidence simply because it is besotted with the idea of seizing government without winning the confidence of the electorate. That is not the case. I have moved this motion because the Opposition no longer has any confidence that the Chief Minister is capable of meeting the responsibilities of the office she holds. This is a motion against the Chief Minister, not the Government. The coroner found that the Chief Minister was the Minister assuming responsibility for the project. The Chief Minister presided over the appalling and systemic failures of administrative practice and corruption of process that led to the Government totally abrogating its responsibility for the most fundamental of its obligations - to protect its citizens. The coroner referred to systemic failure because, as the coroner said, "it starts at the Government as client".
The Canberra Times editorial of 8 November got it right, saying:
... she can be and must be held to account for the way in which she has organised her resources. The style of ACT administration is very much her baby. The senior officials are largely her appointments. The reporting lines, and the reward systems, are matters in which she has been involved. The question is not whether her dabbling was a factor in the disaster, but whether and why the system and the people failed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .