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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1804 ..

code. Indeed, let us reflect on page 10, section 5, “Diligence”, which reads:

Ministers should exercise due diligence, care and attention, and at all times seek to achieve the highest standards practicable in relation to their duties and responsibilities in their official capacity as a Government Minister.

The questions I now feel it necessary to raise here today in regard to this motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister relate, in essence, to three things: firstly, the Chief Minister’s honesty, integrity—which he goes to great lengths to tell us he holds very dear—and character; secondly, the Chief Minister’s ability and suitability to lead; and, thirdly, the fact that this is not an isolated instance, as this Chief Minister has form.

A core tenet of gauging the fitness of any leader to lead must be an assessment of their honesty and their ability to lead. Both are even more important when a leader is under pressure. From a personal point of view, I take no comfort in questioning anyone’s honesty or integrity; but, sadly and regrettably, I now have grave reason to doubt the Chief Minister on both counts.

We should all remember that there has been a pattern of behaviour, spoken about earlier, which I believe makes him unsuitable to hold the office of Chief Minister. Like every member of this place, including members of the Labor Party, I am in a position to and do have a responsibility to question the honesty, trustworthiness and leadership of the Chief Minister; in particular, with regard to the portfolios for which each of us on this side of the house has shadow responsibility.

With that in mind, I have no doubt that under pressure the Chief Minister, as is now emerging, has not been as forthcoming as he could and should have been. Of course, only he can truly answer that. As a result, we must seriously question whether Jon Stanhope has the necessary leadership qualities and integrity required for the position of Chief Minister. Indeed, as late as this morning, as members will have heard, uncertainties continued to emerge about the Chief Minister’s contact with ESB officials prior to 18 January. In fact, Chief Minister, where were you on Friday, 17 January 2003?

It is now patently clear that he either conveniently forgets pertinent issues or says, “I was never told” or “I don’t recall.” I, like the majority of Canberrans, can remember everything about that fateful Saturday of the bushfires. Selective amnesia goes to the heart of honesty. The ability to deal with complex decision making under pressure and then accept responsibility goes right to the heart of leadership.

Let us not forget that these concerns, unfortunately, are not isolated to the January 2003 bushfires. My colleague and leader, Mr Smyth, alluded earlier today to several instances. But there have been other instances where the Chief Minister seems to have conveniently forgotten important issues, failed to provide the appropriate leadership for someone in his position and used public officials as scapegoats. The child protection scandal is such an example. Jon Stanhope acknowledged in an answer to Greg Cornwell on 12 February 2004 that John Hargreaves, the chair of the CSSE committee, told him the week before of the report into the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people, but he says that he did not understand the significance of it, or words to that effect. Was it that Jon Stanhope was not told in a way that he could understand?

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