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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3578 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

But what of those names which have gone? What of the story that tells us? For example, why did not the coroner recall John Walker, at the time the head of administration? The coroner wanted to, he wrote, but he did not. I wonder why the bureaucrat closest to the Chief Minister was not questioned much more closely?

Another example cited today was: the Government is paying the enormous salary of an ex-officer much involved but now working for SOCOG. Why on earth is the Government doing that? How can it be? What is the logic? Well, it is pretty obvious, is it not? It is really quite understandable. You look after me and I will look after you - well, as best we can.

They are just two examples. Those closest to the Chief Minister in this affair have moved on. They have been looked after as best as could be done. The Chief Minister has been looked after. But in this place, we know the lines of responsibility and must act.

I have some more about those lines of responsibility. In this Westminster system, the buck stops with the Chief Minister. This is particularly the case when the Chief Minister is so identified with the administration, when she has been so dominant in restructuring and in directing that administration. The way she has managed this, she is more responsible, not less. There is not an impartial bureaucracy giving frank and fearless advice. The bureaucracy is an arm of the Chief Minister.

We recognise that the notion of ministerial responsibility inevitably changes over the years and varies according to the style of administration. A leader is not responsible for every action of every public servant, or for all their failings. But the Chief Minister is responsible for the general competence of the bureaucracy; for the ability of the administration to operate ethically, cohesively and efficiently in carrying out government policy.

Where that breaks down, the Chief Minister is accountable. Where it breaks down frequently, and in this case with tragic results, that accountability says the Chief Minister must go. It is she who is absolutely responsible for the gross maladministration that resulted in this totally botched implosion. It was the administration, in style and in the people who were appointed, which brought this about, and she was not distant from it. It was delivering what she wanted and it failed because of her style and the defects then built in. That is the responsibility the Chief Minister must accept; and, as she will not, the Assembly must impose it upon her.

Mr Speaker, it seems that the Independents in this place will decide the issue. I believe their independence is at stake here and I am surprised at their indication that they will not support this motion; that they want to wait for the Auditor's report on Bruce Stadium. Have they so downgraded this issue that they will not deal with it today? Is it of so little account? But further, surely the issues have deepened since that last no-confidence motion. On that occasion, Mr Rugendyke said that he was within a hair's breadth of supporting the motion. It was touch and go, marginal. He had two speeches in his hand and only at the last moment did he decide. It was a near thing for the Chief Minister.

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