Page 87 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
never told anyone? Mr Speaker, the real problem is that even if he knew nothing, that simply is not good enough. When you are the Chief Minister, you lead by taking control, knowing what is going on, being across your brief and ensuring that when things go wrong you find out why.
This is how the Westminster system works, especially the way it worked when Jon Stanhope led the opposition. You are responsible for what you know and what you ought to know. The reason is obvious: it is too easy for ministers to avoid asking questions if they do not want to know or simply lie to accept ignorance as an excuse. If Jon Stanhope had lived up to his word, we would not be here today. If Jon Stanhope’s priorities were with Canberra and not with saving his bacon, we would not have waited nearly four years for the coroner’s verdict. If Jon Stanhope was as good as his word, he would have realised that, as the man at the big desk, the buck stops with him and that the failures of January 2003 were his failures.
Yes, the price is high, Mr Speaker, but we appoint chief ministers to make hard decisions and we expect much of them. As we have seen in the past, when they do the wrong thing, we expect them to go. This Chief Minister has done the wrong thing for too long, and it is time for him to go.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (4.36): Mr Speaker, today is a day of great contrasts. On the one hand, it is a chance for me to stand in this place and support the Chief Minister and to celebrate and recognise his great achievements. I am very pleased to be able to do this. However, it is also a day of some anger, frustration and sadness. I am very frustrated to have taxpayers’ money, our time and the business of government used by Mr Stefaniak, the Leader of the Opposition, for this self-seeking, spurious but nonetheless serious motion.
We have heard from a number of my colleagues about the errors of fact contained in the coroner’s report. It contains serious inaccuracies and a number of unsustained and unsustainable comments, comments relating to the actions and responsibilities of cabinet and the Chief Minister. We have heard that many of the comments made in relation to the government were never put to the Chief Minister or other ministers during the inquest. Therefore, there was no opportunity at all to challenge those comments through cross-examination or to bring forward contrary evidence. What are we supposed to think about that?
In relation to the cabinet meeting on 16 January 2003, the assertions contained in the report stretch one’s imagination beyond its bounds. But I do not intend to labour the point. Many who have spoken before me have pointed out these obvious discrepancies and I fail to understand how anyone who has listened to the Chief Minister and Mr Corbell today can continue with this farce of a motion.
It is a great pity that Mr Stefaniak and those opposite are continuing this destructive strategy which has the potential to undermine the lives of more than one person. No-one is denying that the firestorm that descended on Canberra in January 2003 was a terrible event. This event is, of course, well remembered by all of us who were directly or indirectly affected in any way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .