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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1831 ..

MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is unfortunate that today, after a very lengthy debate, we end up with a watered-down recommendation expressing grave concern. But to put that in context, I suppose, grave concern is something like someone being charged before a court with murder for driving a truck at someone and running them down and killing them—a deliberate act—and then that charge being watered down not even to manslaughter, which would be the next lower charge on the agenda, but culpable drive causing death. It is a bit akin to that. But I suppose if, at the end of the day, that is all that is likely to come out of this particular process, that is probably better than a straight acquittal. Yes, the opposition, with reluctance, as has been said by every other speaker, will be supporting that motion.

I do, however, remind members, especially newer members in this place, that motions of no confidence are not taken lightly. I think everyone in this place—virtually everyone who has been a member of this place—is fundamentally a decent person, but they are human; they get things wrong; they have responsibilities; and, on occasions, they very much do the wrong thing. We have standards. We have standards in society; we have standards we expect. In the criminal law there are standards; in the civil law there are standards. Sometimes the standards might seem to people outside to be rather strangely applied.

In the case of this Assembly, for example, my colleague Mrs Dunne lost her job on a committee because of a pamphlet she put out, inadvertently, which she apologised for. But she has suffered a significant penalty there; she is no longer a committee chair. She suffers a loss and a drop in pay.

There is no actual real penalty for “grave concern” expressed in a censure, apart from its being somewhat embarrassing to the recipient, and I would urge members, especially the newer ones and especially the crossbenchers—not Mrs Cross who, I think, made an excellent speech before lunch and has gone through this in great detail and again has reiterated that this afternoon; but perhaps Ms Dundas and Ms Tucker, although it might be water off a duck’s back there, Mr Speaker—to have a look at the history of this place and to have a look at what has gone on before when members and indeed chief ministers have been found guilty of some form of misconduct and have had motions of no confidence actually upheld against them and also perhaps have a look at some of the other matters in relation to censures and the like. It is the gravest matter that can be brought forward.

There has been ample evidence today to indicate, despite the rather ingenious defence by Mr Quinlan, that the Chief Minister is certainly guilty of misleading the Assembly and, as has been said earlier, the normal, accepted practice for that is in fact for a motion of no confidence to get up. Ministers have gone for less. I hark back again to the case of Minister Brown in the federal parliament. So it is a bit sad that the matter has been watered down, because of the gravity of it, and I just wish to make those points for the benefit of members.

MRS BURKE (4.49): I think we need to remind ourselves again that we are here today because the Chief Minister brought this matter on. Let us look closely at Ms Dundas’s amendment. It seeks to substitute these words:

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