Page 3965 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: You cannot have it both ways in relation to emergency services. You cannot seek to vest in a minister responsibility for failings of an authority when your position is that the authority should remain supreme and should have statutory independence. How often have you stood in this place and lambasted both the authority and the government for refusing to allow statutory independence? And as soon as we do and we seek to use the existence of statutory independence and separation between the authority and government for an explanation of a failing of the authority, you seek to vest the responsibility in the minister.
It is the same issue that you exploited in relation to boards for hospitals. It is a better example and a clearer example. You supported the establishment of boards for hospitals. Immediately one was established, you undermined it to the extent that Jim Service, the initial chair of the board, resigned as a result of your interference and your refusal to invest in them the respect that they deserved.
And you do it here. You seek to have it both ways. You demand that the only appropriate and reasonable approach to emergency services management is a statutorily independent authority. As soon as you actually want to invest in responsibility for a failing of the authority in a minister, having argued until you are blue in the face that you needed statutory separation, you ignore the fact of the statutory independence—because it does not suit your purpose.
It is the most blatant hypocrisy. Oh, we want statutory independence when we do not want the minister to be involved or to accept responsibility for achievements, but as soon as the statutory authority itself is responsible for a failing we of course want the minister to accept responsibility for the failing! Well, you cannot have it both ways. Your hypocrisy is so bald faced! It is there for everybody to see.
Mr Seselja: You’ve got 30 seconds to defend him on FireLink.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seselja, cease interjecting.
MR STANHOPE: What do you believe in? Do you believe in statutory separation and independence or don’t you? You believe in statutory independence only when it is actually a benefit.
Mrs Dunne: Why did you sack him?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mrs Dunne!
MR STANHOPE: As soon as it excludes you from attacking a minister, you do not like the notion of statutory independence or separate responsibility for decisions taken by a statutory independent authority. It is humbug and it is hypocrisy of the worst order.
Ministerial performance
MR PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services. Your record as a minister is one of constant failure. For example, there have been cycle lanes, the Grassby statue, the GDE, poor maintenance of roads, poor
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .