Page 3116 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Except that it was not revealed. It was not revealed on the first day, when Katy Gallagher would have known it was relevant and important. It was not revealed during the first week. It was not revealed when she was asked again by the media and again during estimates. And, most importantly, it was not revealed to the Auditor-General when they held their inquiry. Even on this fact, Katy Gallagher could not tell the truth. She went on air on ABC radio and said she had told the auditor about the holiday when, quite frankly, she had not. It is not the crime, they say, but the cover-up. In this case it is both. It was a deception deliberately laid for political protection. Katy Gallagher knew from day one this connection would be a problem, and so she tried to hide it. Now she has been found out, just as the lies about the ED data were found out and the truth about our health system was found out.
I said at the beginning of my speech that we only move these types of motions in the most serious of circumstances. Just how serious it has to be has been set by precedent, and I will now remind members of the standards set by previous motions.
I know those opposite are going to decry the use of this mechanism, citing an ever-increasing variety of desperate denials and denigrations. And I utterly reject those denigrations of our democracy. A no-confidence motion, used judiciously, is a vital part of a functioning parliament. I will quote the former Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, when he was opposition leader. Mr Stanhope said:
Motions of want of confidence or censure are legitimate tools by which governments are called to account, particularly in jurisdictions where there is such an arrogant disregard for the obligation to be accountable as in this Territory under this government. If governments are found wanting, they must face censure.
(Extension of time granted.) The irony of quoting a former Labor leader against the current one is not lost upon me. But Mr Stanhope made some pertinent points. Since I have become Leader of the Opposition I have only used this mechanism twice—that is twice in almost five years. The standard set by the Labor Party is far more profligate. They moved three motions in little more than 12 months at one stage. Motions of no confidence were used by Labor when they were in opposition in June 1999, November 1999 and October 2000. By comparison, and by any fair observation, we have been far more reticent to reach for this mechanism. Before any Labor member stands and tries to deny the right of an opposition to use this tool, they should look at their own record.
Given the opposition is entitled to move this type of motion, the question then becomes: what type of action warrants sanction? Again, it is history that provides the precedents. The last and only motion to come close to succeeding was that moved against former Liberal leader Kate Carnell. Ms Carnell has gone public with her observations that she was sanctioned for reasons far less closely linked to her own involvement than those facing us today. In short, Ms Carnell had no confidence moved against her because of a wrongful act of a public servant, and Jon Stanhope argued with great vigour that the responsibility lay with the minister. Labor argued that a chief minister must be stood down because what had happened was “inexcusable”. He said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video