14 February 2007

Liberals to move no confidence in Stanhope

| Kerces
Join the conversation

Bill Stefaniak has announced he’s made up his mind about what to do about Coroner Maria Doogan’s report into the 2003 bushfires.

First thing next Tuesday morning, the Legislative Assembly’s first sitting day of the year, he’s going to move a no confidence motion against the Chief Minister. Effectively this means the sitting agenda won’t get underway until the following week, as debate must be adjourned so members can consider the motion.

Mr Stefaniak does say that “the Opposition does not lightly move a motion of no confidence in a Chief Minister”, though it will handily give them all an extra week of holidays.

If the motion is passed (unlikely, with the majority government), convention requires the Chief Minister to resign.

Interestingly, Jon Stanhope has moved the most no confidence motions in the Assembly’s history; being three against Kate Carnell. She resigned before the last of these could be debated.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

Yeah, I wonder if Stefaniak has anything up his sleeve too. If he had waited a couple of weeks he might have had more ammunition. I gather both Stanhope along with the NSW Bushfire bureaucrats are going to cop a bit of flack in the press and on national TV in the weeks ahead. Also, remeber that Stanhope is supposed to respond to the 73 Coroner recommendations this month. Perhaps Stefaniak’s move is designed to put some pressure on him ahead of that.

And again I back wholeheatedly JB’s call for minority government.
I have never understood why the Australian media constantly bemoans the risk of a so-called ‘hung parliament’ at any level. Plenty of good things are achieved by governments around the world where a minority forces them to take into account community views.
And in Australia a recent example is the only time in the last several decades that Queensland had an accountable government – when independent Peter Wellington put Peter Beattie in as a minority and held the balance of power for the next three years. Unfortunately Beattie then got a majority in his own right and accountability went out the window.
So even without wishful legislative changes to enshrine minority government, the solution is to put all fuirst preferences to reasonable-minded independents and minority parties in 2008.

Wonder if I can move a no confidence vote in my boss and get a week off work?
Surely one of the more bizarre aspects of ACT self-government regulations…

There should be a quota system to prevent majority governmet, but then, maybe voters should be smart enough not to elect one in the first instance? – louise

Sure… because when casting votes people are already fully aware of how many other votes have and will be polled and know exactly when to stop voting for the party they want to govern.

Surely the thing that tipped Kate over the edge was her, ahem, slightly flexible treatment relating to a drink driving charge?

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt8:11 am 15 Feb 07

Kate laid the charges and pressed the button did she? Or did overzealous public accountability requirements (buy the CHEAPEST, dammit!), result in a contractor being selected that was inappropriate for the task?

I’m all for public accountability, but the value equation gets lost very easily.

Come on. Sure Jon oversaw one of the worst disasters in australia but Kate painted the GRASS GREEN IN THE STADIUM!!!!

Its like apples and oranges.

That’s rather common for politicians in any majority government, though, isn’t it?

And yes, I am thinking of the mob further on up the hill…

He likes the bits that give him untrammeled power, he’s just less keen on the accountability and responsibility components.

Anyone have the hansard links of Stanhope’s speeches when he was calling for Kate Carnell to resign? I think it would be an interesting read.

It seems like Jon Stanhope doesn’t hold the Westminster principals of government as important anymore.

Ingeegoodbee6:03 pm 14 Feb 07

“…I’d get behind it if, for instance, Stefaniak was going to present something new, some incompetence above and beyond the stuff we already know about…”

I would have thought that there was enough proof of deceit, incompetence and gutless weaselling already in the public domain to justify a no confidence motion – it’s just a shame that there wont be anyone on the Labor benches with the guts and respect for the Canberra community to cross the floor.

I have to agree with Johnboy. There should be a quota system to prevent majority governmet, but then, maybe voters should be smart enough not to elect one in the first instance?

Why do they need a whole bloody week to consider the motion?

ACT Assembly was fundamentally not designed for majority Government.

There should be some cutoff when a party is one seat shy and the preferences assigned as if candidates had reached quota.

See, I’d get behind it if, for instance, Stefaniak was going to present something new, some incompetence above and beyond the stuff we already know about. But I highly doubt he’s got anything up his sleeve that particularly surprises.

At least when Stanhope was running similar motions, the libs were in minority government, and there was the possibility of Kate losing (I’d guess that possibility looked quite realistic when Kate decided to resign rather than face it)

noper, a whole week of sittings

So, basically, he’s going to waste a sitting day?

Hell, why not – it’s not like they’re going to be doing anything important at all, like, I dunno, GOVERNING!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.