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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1823 ..

motion, namely, the fact that I did mislead this Assembly, and I stood up here upon acknowledging that I had misled the Assembly and corrected the record. That is what the want of confidence motion was meant to be about. But you could not resist the temptation to hold me personally responsible for the fire.

This is not about my misleading the Assembly: this is about your determination to actually achieve that one spark of hope that Mr Quinlan referred to, namely, that you can, in some way, create an impression within the community that the fire was all my fault; that it is all down to me; that I should have stood there as some colossus and stopped it; and the fact that I did not is something that I need to bear for the rest of my life.

It is all about, “Jon Stanhope, you are responsible for the fire. It’s all your fault. It’s all your fault and nobody else’s.” That is what this is about. This has got nothing to do with the integrity of this parliament. It has got nothing to do with the processes of this Assembly. It has got nothing to do with the fact that I inadvertently misled the Assembly. That is what the motion purports to be about. But that is not what you are interested in. You are interested in grasping like drowning men and women that one glimmer of hope that you think you might have in actually perhaps improving on your vote at the last election. That is what it is all about. We all know that and the community knows that.

I stand with an easy conscience in relation to my role and my performance in relation to the disastrous fires of 2003. My conscience is easy. I fulfilled my duty and obligations to the highest level and I stand easy. You can do and say and lie and defame as you will, and as you will no doubt continue to do, between now and the election, and good luck to you. If that is the way you want to go, go down that way.

But this motion today has not been sustained. What I have done is absolutely consistent with the ministerial code of conduct and it is absolutely consistent with my responsibilities as a minister under the Westminster conventions in relation to ministerial responsibility.

No case has been made. Because the case has not been made at any level, and nor could it be, I indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. This case has not been made at any level. Even at the level that Ms Dundas would seek to pitch it, the case has not been made. This is not a circumstance in which you could say, “Well, yes, the case hasn’t been made but you need to carry some burden. We need to send you out of here with some flea in your ear as a salutary message to everybody.” In effect, it is a matter of saying, “The finding is not guilty but we need to set an example of some sort and you’ll do.” That simply is no way to deal with an issue of this significance. The case has not been made, the government cannot support the amendment and, of course, we will not be supporting the motion.

MRS CROSS (4.19): Mr Speaker, on Ms Dundas’s amendment: I will reluctantly support this watered-down accountability measure, if that is what we can call it. Of course I disagree with the comments made by a member earlier that this is only about a single forgotten phone call. That is a red herring. To simplify this matter in this way is disappointing and, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of many members in this place.

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