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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1209 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

He went on to echo criticisms made by the Auditor-General and, in particular, on this occasion and elsewhere, he had highly critical comments to make about the then head of the Department of Treasury, Mr Lilley, and Ms Ford, who was then in the Chief Minister's Department. Both of those public servants came in for trenchant and, I would go so far as to say, quite vicious criticism by the then Labor opposition. Remember there were no deaths involved in the situation at Bruce Stadium.

In that matter there was no question of forgiveness. There was no question of being able to say that public servants could be exonerated with a wave of a hand by the Chief Minister of the day. Indeed, I would ask members, particularly those who were there at the time, to consider what might have been the reaction of the Assembly as a whole if the Chief Minister of the day, Mrs Carnell, had come to this place and said,

I choose to forgive those public servants who were criticised heavily in the report of the Auditor-General on Bruce Stadium. I choose to exonerate them. I have worked with them. I know what they are like. I know that these criticisms are unfair. I will not take it any further.

I think Mrs Carnell would have been on a slow spit-roast in this place before she could have taken off her hat.

The question is whether there is consistency in this approach. The Liberal Party has chosen to be tolerant of the circumstances in which these public servants worked in disability services, just as we understood and accepted the limitations under which public servants worked in the earlier period of time under the Liberal government. Whether we have been too tolerant is a matter for further examination of the report of the Gallop inquiry to ascertain. However, at least we have been consistent. At least we have not taken one view in government and a different view in opposition.

I think it behoves the government to explain, in the course of this debate, why it is that criticism of this sort should be acceptable and acted upon when in opposition, but immediately put to one side when in government. I ask members to consider what would have been the case if there had not been a change of government in October of last year. If it had been me standing over there, exonerating Dr Gregory, Mr Szwarcbord, Ms McGregor and others, what would the reaction have been of some members in this place? I suspect it would have been less than tolerant of my position.

I have already made mention of the fact that the response will come down in October of this year. I think that is too late. It behoves the government to speak much sooner on this matter. In particular, I regret the fact that there will not be an opportunity, presumably, for this budget, due next month, to be informed by the government's response to the Gallop report. Perhaps it will contain some extra funding in general terms, but obviously decisions about that funding will not be informed by public debate and consultation with the stakeholders, which would produce a public outcome that we could all discuss.

I want to refer to what I would call the debacle over the tabling of this report in this place. It was tabled much too late, and it was provided in a way that threw serious doubt on the government's claims to be an open and accountable government. During the last sitting period, I asked Mr Stanhope a question about the tabling of the report. I referred

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