Page 500 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 16 February 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, it is quite interesting to read some of yesterday’s answers. Mr Stanhope said:
One of my fundamental responsibilities is to ensure the integrity of that system.
He went on to say:
This goes to a fundamental principle—that justice be done and that justice be seen to be done …
Justice is not being seen to be done, Chief Minister, and I believe that the public would like you to stand aside for the duration of this coronial inquest.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (3.42): Mr Speaker, this motion is about ensuring the integrity of the position of Attorney-General. Mr Stanhope spoke yesterday fairly eloquently, almost with a quaver in his voice, about the role of the Attorney-General as the first law officer and how he had to ensure the integrity of the position. Mr Smyth just quoted those words—he has to ensure the integrity of the position.
This motion is about ensuring the integrity of the position of Attorney-General. It is not for us to pass judgment on whether the attorney has done the right thing or the wrong thing. The motion is about requiring the attorney to act as we and the people of the ACT expect him to act—to, like Caesar’s wife, be above reproach. All of us in this place have to act like Caesar’s wife, but for the Attorney-General that bar is placed even higher.
I would like to refer briefly to a recent instance in which one of Mr Stanhope’s colleagues saw just how high the bar was set and acted accordingly. Midway through 2003, allegations were made against the Attorney-General in the South Australian parliament. They were very serious allegations. Although those around him knew that he had no case to answer, the matter was referred to the police for investigation. The Premier of South Australia said of Mr Atkinson that, in accordance with the highest possible standards of conduct, the Attorney-General had resigned, pending the outcome of the inquiry.
Mr Atkinson was entirely and utterly exonerated and he went back to performing the duties of Attorney-General in South Australia as an honourable man. But what did Mr Atkinson do when there was even the vaguest shadow of a question about his performance and the implications that that would have for the first law officer? He did not just stand aside; he resigned, Mr Speaker. He set the bar for himself very high and Mr Stanhope sets the bar for himself in this place considerably lower than that.
I think that Mr Stanhope should take a leaf out of the book of his Labor colleague, his fellow attorney in the South Australian parliament, Mr Michael Atkinson, and follow suit. He does not have to resign. We are not actually asking him to resign; we are asking him to stand aside. He should stand aside. He should do the honourable thing. He should behave as we expect all people in this place to behave—with the utmost integrity.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra)(3.46), in reply: I thank members for their varying contributions to the debate. Taking them in reverse order, there was an excellent analogy
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .