Tony Stewart Part II

Tony Stewart is finally having his day in Court over his sacking as a NSW Government Minister.  Representing the Government, Brett Walker SC has argued to the NSW Court of Appeal that the judiciary should have nothing to do with the decision. 

Walker argues that the Ministerial appointment was an at-pleasure appointment and that Stewart could have been sacked without the report of Chris Ronalds SC.  Mr Walker is absolutely correct that Nathan Rees did not need the report to get rid of Tony Stewart as a Minister – the grievance is that he used the report! 

Rees could have chosen to get rid of him because he didn’t like his style, his dress sense, or his haircut….. anything at all; but using the questionable findings of a ‘kangaroo court’ that would leave a black mark against his name is shameful. 

It is hard to know if the woeful judgment exhibited on many issues since becoming Premier can all be attributed to the Premier's natural and inherent genius - if so, then we're in big trouble.  I suspect that while the Premier must take ultimate responsibility for the decisions, he has no doubt been provided with atrocious advice from his Labor appointed advisors.

I don't believe that there is an argument that Stewart should be reinstated as a Minister.  That would be untenable and undermine the right of the Premier to select his Ministerial team.  The Premier however should acknowledge that the Ronalds investigation was flawed, should not have been used as the basis of Stewart's sacking ...... and he should offer Tony Stewart and his family an apology.

Tony Stewart - Member for Bankstown/former Minister

Nathan Rees opened up a "can of worms" when he dismissed then Minister for Small Business, Tony Stewart from the portfolio, following an investigation into alleged misconduct at a charity event.  The Premier didn't act without advice though, he commissioned the services of Chris Ronalds SC to investigate allegations by Stewart's staffer, Tina Sanger, that he had abused her and placed his hand on her leg, apparently to stop her rising from her seat.

Even though Chris Ronalds did not interview all who may have observed the incident, she found that she was more inclined to believe Ms Sanger's version of the events.  On that basis, the Premier removed Tony Stewart from Cabinet.  Two things happened to Stewart from this - he lost a prestigious position and very likely any chance to further advance in politics; but more importantly I am sure, he had his reputation damaged, perhaps irreparably.

Assuming that Stewart carried out the actions he was accused of, that may be fair.  Unfortunately, the process that Rees used was clearly a quasi judicial process more akin to a "kangaroo court" than a proper inquiry.  Tony Stewart was in my opinion denied natural justice and procedural fairness.  Whether or not that is the legal case will be decided by the Supreme Court unless the Premier takes other action acceptable to Stewart to head off a Court ruling.

I know Tony Stewart to say hello to only.  I have no idea of what he is like as a person but have never seen or heard anything to question his character.  If the Premier had other reasons for wanting to remove Stewart as a Minister then he should have just done so.  Ministers can be promoted or demoted and while there may be a political need to find some justification for it, that would surely be better than to use a process that has destroyed a mans reputation and hurt not just him, but also his family.  In trying to show that he is firmly in control, Nathan Rees once again showed that he is still very much serving an apprenticeship.  Tony Stewart has every right to be angry.