It now seems likely that the Auditor-General’s report into the Bruce Stadium will be tabled at a special sitting of the ACT Legislative Assembly next week – possibly as early as Monday. There would be two weeks to digest the report before the next formal sitting at which notice of a no-confidence motion could be given to be debated seven days later.
The timing of the special tabling sitting is an extraordinary co-incidence. The last Olympic soccer game would have been played the previous evening – presumably to a packed audience. It will have followed more than a week of packed Olympic games and the earlier sell-out rugby union and rugby league finals and laurie Daly farewell. It means a lot of Canberrans will have seen the stadium first-hand. They are now more likely to view the venture more favourably than 16 months ago when the no-confidence motion in Chief Minister Kate Carnell was debated and lost in the Assembly, largely because the two crucial Independent MLAs, Dave Rugendyke and Paul Osborne, thought it important to see the Auditor-General’s report before making a decision. That was an entirely reasonable approach. However, no-one knew it would take so long. The wait should not change the underlying principles of accountability of the executive government to the parliament. But it has inevitably changed the political climate.
Tipping out the Government and installing a Labor Government mid-term without an election must pose severe political risks for those who do it in a climate of very good economic indicators and far less public concern over Bruce now the thing is finished and has hosted the Games. Moreover, and change of government mid-stream is bound ot be bad for busienss confidence and would reflect badly on those responsible for it at the next poll. So, politically, it would not be very wise to tip out the Government.
But what about questions of principle? Going on the vote at the last no-confidence motion, Labor, Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker and former Liberal now United Canberra MLA Trevor Kaine would happily vote no confidence in Mrs Carnell without even opening the report. The only thing that has changed is Labor’s reluctance to initiate a no-confidence motion follwing the previous failure. If left to Mr Kaine, it would put him in the invidious position of throwing out a Liberal Government and installing a Labor one, whatever his feelings about Mrs Carnell. That would betray his political pedigree.
Ultimately it will be up to Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne. They will need to read the report very carefully. They should not throw out a government on general impressions, mere bad administration or cost overruns. On that theory governments would have fallen over the Collins submarine or cost overruns for the Docklands Stadium, Stadium Australia, the Sydney Opera House or Parliament House. This might warrant adverse comment and censure, but not no-confidence. Rather they will need to see in the report stated conclusions of fraud, corruption, misleading of the Parliament or overt improper ministerial interference by the Chief Minister or her ministers before they vote for no confidence.
To do otherwise is to admit they are voting on a purely political basis. They are entitled to do that. The Assembly is not a court but a political body. But if they do it, it is a statement that they prefer Labor and its policies over the Liberal Government’s policies. Doing that without an election is an invitation for future instability and should invite the strongest voter reaction against cross-bench irresponsibility when the opportunity next arises.