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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1803 ..

Surely he could have seen the smoke surrounding Canberra when he woke up. Surely that would have been enough to ask some questions for the safety of the city he is paid to govern. But, as I have said before: ask no questions; receive no information.

The Chief Minister’s defence here today—“If I had been told such things do you think I would not have acted?”—this appeal to be completely exonerated, based on his character, his reputation and his claim of integrity, is simply not a defence which will hold up in any court in the land. In fact, his defence is a demonstration of false pride. This evidence of failure and inaction over the past 2½ years has led us to this point: it is the sole and solid reason—these failures which we have listed—that the Chief Minister should be directed to stand down, to resign.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

MRS BURKE (2.55): Mr Speaker, I must make the comment at the start that we have had eight speakers, one being the Chief Minister, and I am surprised at the lack of support shown for the Chief Minister so far today.

The reason I and the rest of us are standing here today has no bearing upon the coronial inquiry or the outcome of it, as has been mentioned. It has everything to do with the Chief Minister and how he has most definitely and repeatedly misled this Assembly and the people directly affected by the January 2003 bushfires, most particularly the residents of Weston Creek, Kambah and the rural villages. Not to have proceeded with this motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister today would have been a dereliction of our duty collectively.

In this debate, Mr Stanhope has spoken much about his integrity and the value he places on his reputation. That is understandable. None of us likes to be criticised, particularly on questions not only of competence but also of honesty. But he is really saying here, “How dare you criticise me? I’m an honourable man.” In asking us to accept his integrity, he is asking us to abandon our integrity. In particular, as do we all, I have a duty to the voters of the ACT to hold him to account for his leadership and his honesty, especially in relation to the portfolios for which I have shadow responsibility, and that is a responsibility I take very seriously indeed.

So I cannot just accept the Chief Minister’s assurances that he would not knowingly mislead the Assembly or the people of the ACT. We owe it to those who put us here to look into this question properly, and not to allow our questions to be swept aside by this kind of egotistical bluster. I am very angry that the Chief Minister has placed each of us in the Assembly in this position. Chief Minister, believe it or not, your actions as Chief Minister reflect on every member of this place, on each one of us.

The Chief Minister continues to attempt to convince not only himself but also others that he has not been negligent in his duties and has not abrogated his responsibility. I refute that argument vehemently. It is appalling to think that this man thinks that we in this place will fall for the line he has spun us this morning. He must think that we came down in the last shower. Please! The discredited Carmen Lawrence defence is no defence.

The Chief Minister, after much debate, finally tabled in February this year his code of conduct for ministers, which he spoke about. Let us remember that he is not above this

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