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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1810 ..

In light of that, the Chief Minister should not walk out of this Assembly today without having the Assembly make the statement that we hear loud and clear that he misled us and that that is inexcusable; without the Assembly expressing grave concern at his conduct; and without the Assembly putting clearly on the record that we note what he has done and are unhappy about it. The Chief Minister cannot walk away from the Assembly today with a clean record, because what he has done is inexcusable—he has said that—and he should learn from it. We should all learn from it. So, to that end, I will move an amendment to the motion. I move:

Omit all words after “has” (first occurring), substitute:

“misled the Legislative Assembly on the question of advice given to him and contact made with him during the period 17-18 January 2003 regarding the 2003 bushfires, this Assembly expresses its grave concern at the conduct of the Chief Minister, Mr Jon Stanhope MLA.”.

I have moved the amendment because I believe that it is the right thing to do. I believe that it is important that it is shown on the Chief Minister’s record that this Assembly did not just accept his apology and let him walk away, that we made it clear to him and to the community that we were concerned about his conduct.

I want members to consider this amendment, because between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party we have two positions: that he lose his job, that he be given the most heavy form of justice that this Assembly can bring down, versus nothing at all. I think both those positions are untenable. That is why I have put forward this amendment. I think that I have put forward the reasons I have done so and I hope that members will consider it as the best option.

I would like to say that this amendment does not mean that I am backing away from ever considering a no-confidence motion against any minister in this place; but, on the evidence before us generally and the evidence before us in the Assembly, I cannot see how we can ask the Chief Minister to step down. The coroner is still working through all of the evidence. We are yet to hear from the coroner about where the core of truth lies. But we have had an admission from the Chief Minister that he did something inexcusable and we should recognise that. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

MS TUCKER (3.28): Mr Speaker, I am concerned as well that we are not hearing from the government through this debate. I do not know why. It seems as if some kind of game is going on and I do not think that it is particularly useful that no-one has spoken from the government except the Chief Minister.

Mr Quinlan: We have to hear what they have to say first.

MS TUCKER: There are a few of you that could be responding. Anyway, this no-confidence motion has been put by the Liberals because of the misleading of the Assembly by the Chief Minister regarding contact he had with the ESB at the time of the fires. As everyone is aware, the Chief Minister acknowledged and apologised for that misleading in last week’s sitting, explaining that he had failed to recollect a phone call with Tim Keady and that this had become apparent when phone records were checked. He has also said that he continues to have no memory of that call.

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