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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1837 ..

It is important for the culture that I spoke about before that we send a message that behaviour such as, “I forgot. The dog ate my homework,” and all of this sort of thing cannot be allowed to go unpunished. There must be some punishment. Yes, it is with reluctance and, yes, it is because we can count that we will be supporting this plea bargaining. This is nothing more—it is plea bargaining. Sometimes plea bargaining is a pretty nasty thing in the courts and it is a pretty nasty thing here today.

MS TUCKER (5.07): I seek leave to speak to the amendment.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I did speak briefly to the amendment in my initial presentation. But I am a little concerned about how this amendment to the motion is being interpreted by various speakers. For the record, I make it quite clear that my supporting this expression of grave concern is related to the question of why there was not earlier checking of phone records by the Chief Minister when these issues kept being raised by everyone concerned. That is quite a different issue from Mrs Dunne’s assertion that it is plea bargaining or Mr Hargreaves’s concern that it is a watering-down of the motion.

There are two issues here. I support this motion because it is regrettable that there was misleading, and that greater diligence and reasonable efforts were not made, as is described in Senate Practice, to ensure that there was no misleading. That is what I am gravely concerned about. I have accepted that Jon Stanhope forgot the phone call. I totally reject the assertions from the Liberal opposition that he intentionally misled—in other words lied. I do not accept that. But I do accept this amendment because it is concerning that greater effort was not made to check the records.

MS DUNDAS (5.08): I seek leave to speak to my amendment again.

Leave granted.

MS DUNDAS: I briefly respond to some points that have been made in the debate on this amendment. I would like members to look at the amendment. It states that we would pass a motion that would read:

That, since the Chief Minister has misled the Assembly on the question of advice given to him and contact made with him during the period 17 to 18 January regarding the bushfires, this Assembly expresses its grave concern at the conduct of the Chief Minister...

It is specific to the question of advice; it is specific to the question of the Chief Minister misleading this Assembly. He admitted that, and I am glad that he brought that to our attention. But I do not think that that means that he should walk away without some form of reprimand.

Some members have made the point that this form of motion sets a dangerous precedent. I would like to draw the attention of members to some other motions against ministers that have been moved in this Assembly.

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