Page 1903 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The motion before us today is instead a motion which makes specific accusations against the Chief Minister and, on the basis of those accusations, calls for his removal from office. I would also like to be clear that this motion is not about whether one approves or not of the construction of the proposed or originally proposed power station and data centre near Macarthur.
In making my decision on the substantive motion, I believe that it is appropriate to approach it in the same way as one would approach an accusation made in a court of law. In other words, political agreement or disagreement on matters of policy and philosophy must be put aside and the focus must be on the specific allegations made and the evidence of those allegations. In this particular process I do believe that the onus of proof of the matters alleged rests solely with the opposition.
Dr Foskey and I had a conversation last night and she made a comment to me which I hope she does not mind me repeating. She said, “I think it is also up to the government to prove that they did not do wrong.” I am not one who subscribes to the Napoleonic approach to law, and I think the fact is that the case has to be well made out to warrant the support of all members here for a motion of no confidence. Since the allegations contain specific allegations of instances of misconduct, the case must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all members of this Assembly. The opposition must present evidence to convince members that their version of the facts is credible and that any instances of misconduct made out are sufficient to warrant the removal of the Chief Minister from office.
I am aware that passions are high on this issue and I expect, as we have seen already, that this motion carries some degree of vitriol from both sides of the chamber, but I hope in this circumstance I am able to provide a somewhat more objective voice on the issue. I have met with the opposition leader and his advisers, and I appreciate the time and effort they have made available. I have been given a number of documents which they rely on in making their argument. I have also been fortunate enough to have been provided with a comprehensive briefing by ActewAGL and by the government and the Chief Minister on the process of site selection for the Canberra technology city power station.
The opposition contends that a finding of no confidence in the Chief Minister should be made, amongst other things, for misleading the estimates committee. The motion itself does not give details of the specific instances of testimony from the Chief Minister that the opposition alleges were misleading. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the opposition disputes the Chief Minister’s assertions that the government did not rule out any of the sites for the power station and did not pressure ActewAGL to select a particular site for their development. There are various instances at which the Chief Minister put this view to the committee. For example, the Chief Minister stated at the estimates hearing on 16 June that:
Selection of a preferred site was, quite properly, a matter for ActewAGL and its partners.
That is at page 1201 of the transcript of 16 June 2008.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .