Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3282 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
I have made it clear, Mr Speaker, that I accept the view that the decisions or omissions which led to some of the transactions being outside the law were matters that occurred not at the direction or behest of any member of cabinet, and not at the direction or behest of any senior member of the public service, but rather as a result of omission at the lower levels of the public service. I do not attach any blame for that. The completion of a single instrument under the Financial Management Act would have remedied that problem, on my advice-
Mr Stanhope: You are sticking to the defence. Nothing has changed.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, if those opposite wish to pursue that matter, they have the comments of the Auditor-General on the record. I remain of the view that all parties concerned in this matter acted with the best of intentions. There is no evidence in the auditor's report that anybody did not act with those sorts of intentions. I think that is an appropriate reflection on the course of this matter.
MR STANHOPE: I have a supplementary question. The Auditor-General found that the cabinet submission on which the decision to proceed with the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium was made was seriously inaccurate and incomplete. It had not been circulated beyond the former Chief Minister's Department and office. Can the Chief Minister tell us why, in his former role as Attorney-General and first law officer, he did not ask for time to consider the implications of the cabinet submission and to seek the advice of his department?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, there are many submissions which come before cabinet which are not circulated to every department. That has been the case under this government. Undoubtedly it was the case under the previous government. I do not think anyone would imagine for an instant that every decision needs to be run past the Department of Justice and Community Safety.
Mr Stanhope: This wasn't some tiny little decision, Chief Minister.
MR HUMPHRIES: It was a decision which had been carefully canvassed beforehand.
Mr Stanhope: By whom?
MR HUMPHRIES: My recollection is that the decision that Mr Stanhope is referring to was a decision which had been previously referred to in terms of other cabinet submissions which had been made in the period before that point. It was not the first decision on this matter that went before cabinet. It may have been inaccurate and incomplete. That is what the Auditor-General has found. He also found, if you recall, Mr Stanhope, that the cabinet acted properly in light of the information laid before it.
Mr Stanhope: The totally inadequate information. It had none.
MR HUMPHRIES
: I know that you would like to find that somehow the documents were so glaringly inadequate that members of the cabinet should have realised that something was wrong, but that is a matter that the Auditor-General actually commented on. He said that it was within the competence of cabinet to make the decisions it did based on the submissions before it. He did not say, unfortunately for your submission
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .