Page 501 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 16 February 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from Mrs Dunne of a Labor Attorney-General doing the right thing, but actually resigning rather than simply standing aside. Standing aside in that instance would have been fine, but he resigned. Of course, he is now back as Attorney-General after being exonerated. That was absolutely spot on in terms of what the public would expect. As with Caesar’s wife, the attorney is actually a little bit above the rest of his colleagues.
Mr Smyth gave a very good summary of the general community perception that is being relayed to members of the opposition. He gave a very good summary in relation to relating it back to the system. Unfortunately, it does seem now that Mr Stanhope feels that in this place he is the system. Mrs Dunne said, “L’etat c’est moi”—“The state is me.” Pardon my French pronunciation.
Turning to some of the other members who made comment in this debate, I agree with Mr Seselja that justice does have to be seen to be done. That is what people want here. That is exactly what the community is expecting. In relation to Dr Foskey, I think she has completely missed the point. We do not necessary want to see a different Attorney-General after the event, after it is all over. We are not suggesting that. We are suggesting that the present Attorney-General—
Mr Hargreaves: Do you want me to do it?
MR STEFANIAK: I am sure that you would be wonderful, John. We are only suggesting that the present Attorney-General, the Chief Minister, stand aside for the duration of this coronial inquest and the related court cases and then, once all that is over, come back as Attorney-General. We do not even want him to do what his South Australian colleague did and resign. He should simply stand aside. Any one of the other ministers, given, I assume, that none of them is going to give evidence in this inquiry, could be Attorney-General for that period.
It is a pretty simple, basic concept that is going to do absolutely nothing to interfere with the good running of the government. However, it will ensure that the position of Attorney-General is honoured, that precedent and perception are actually followed, and that the attorney, who has got himself into an awful muddle in relation to this matter, does the right thing, realises that he is in an impossible conflict of interest situation and stands aside. It is very simple. Dr Foskey, it would be pointless to do anything much after the event, because he would be fine after the event. He would come back as Attorney-General. I think that your thinking is a bit muddled in relation to that.
I think that Mr Smyth and I have answered Mr Quinlan’s point about all government members potentially being in a conflict of interest situation. No, they are not, unless they are going to give evidence at the coronial inquest. I cannot accept his point there. I think that it is a nonsense unless you are a witness.
Mr Stanhope made some gratuitous comments in relation to what happened last year when we were trying to get up a vote of no confidence in him, saying that we are now down to suggesting that he stand aside and asking what it is going to be next time. Maybe he should take a Bex and lie down occasionally, but he probably does not need us to move such a motion. I think that he completely missed the point as to what we were doing at the end of last year and sadly, it seems, misses the point as to what we are doing here today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .