Page 202 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ride roughshod over the community. We can ride roughshod over this Assembly if we want to.” How disgraceful and what an abuse of power, position and authority. What an abuse!
If those opposite cannot set themselves apart from the position to make a decision about what has gone on here, I will be really pleased, as will my colleagues, to forward a copy of this particular debate to as many people as possible in the community in order that they can decide for themselves, come the next election or possibly before, the suitability of Mr Stanhope to continue to hold the office of Attorney-General.
What are we doing in this place? We are setting a precedent to bring the position of Attorney-General into such disrepute. The position of Attorney-General is the most powerful position for anyone to hold. Mr Stanhope has stood in this place, almost tongue in cheek and with a grin on his face, trying to twist and turn this debate into something that it is not. He has not answered one straight question. He cannot, and has no argument to, defend what the Liberal opposition have put forward; nor have his colleagues. They have put forward very weak arguments indeed. For government members to cry “boring” and class this as a waste of time comes back to the heart of the problem today.
It has been said—and disappointingly—that we have an arrogant government, obviously now feeling so superior hat nothing or no-one can touch them. They think they are “the infallibles”, the untouchables. I think we will nickname them that from now on. I will finish by reading from a letter in the Canberra Times of 3 October from Mr Stephen Andrew of Duffy:
Well, well. The Times has finally woken up” and started to ask questions of the Labor Government and its performance before the inquest.
Whilst the timing, immediately following the election, is suspect, I am still grateful to see these issues raised.
I also note Stanhope’s response of October 28.
Frankly, Jon, take responsibility and stand down.
Your conflict of interest is obvious to all except yourself and the ACT Law Society.
Tell me, if the Coroner is forced to stand down, who chooses the new one?
That is an excellent question. Mr Andrew goes on:
The apparent manipulation of the process is obvious and demonstrable; your use of spin even more so.
I could not agree more. He continues:
Certainly, your own expertise and memory has been stretched, as was demonstrated in your own evidence to the inquest.
I remember every minute of that day, perhaps because I had to stand and watch my neighbours’ homes burn.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .