Page 1792 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What it does not invite is the no-confidence motion we have seen in this chamber this morning. This matter arose in the last 48 hours. The minister stood in the chamber yesterday and answered a series of questions to the best of his ability at that point and undertook to do further work. In our view, that is appropriate. That is the minister’s job, to set up the processes to get to the bottom of this. Minister Steel has provided more detail this morning on the steps that he undertook prior to this and he has tabled a series of documents, which Ms Lee referred to in her speech. I am satisfied that that is what the minister should be doing at this point in time. He should be putting this information on the table, and I think he has done that in a suitable and proactive way.
What we have seen from the Liberal Party this morning is that they are seeking the political death penalty before the trial has even taken place. That is what this motion is about. I think the Chief Minister summed it up quite well in his remarks. Yesterday we set up a process with the Auditor-General—and I reflect on the comments that Ms Lee made in her closing remarks yesterday. She sort of expressed scepticism. You know, this Assembly cannot direct the Auditor-General to do something, but we have clearly asked—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR RATTENBURY: Now they are starting to interject. Wait for the rest of the explanation. We asked the Auditor-General to do this, recognising that the Assembly cannot direct the Auditor-General. The motion was very carefully written to require that the Auditor-General advise the Speaker of whether he intends to undertake that audit. That way, this Assembly can know. If the Auditor-General chooses not to do it—and, frankly, I would be surprised, but that is the Auditor-General’s decision under the legislation—this Assembly will know and then we can take other steps. But the Auditor-General is the best mechanism we have to look at this.
The way Ms Lee undermined that in her remarks yesterday afternoon I think reflects poorly on her understanding of both the way the system works and what was actually in the motion, which provided the Assembly with a repechage option, should that be required. We should investigate these matters thoroughly and then draw conclusions, not jump to conclusions.
I have been reflecting on the way that the Liberal Party have operated in this matter, in line with the way that they treated Mr Davis during the last sitting period. Members might reflect on that one. They came in here and threw all sorts of allegations at Mr Davis about a matter he had sent out to the electorate. They accused him of everything under the sun. They drew all the conclusions. They found guilt in this chamber, yet, when it went to the independent commissioner for standards, Mr Davis was found not to have breached the rules.
Ms Lee: Madam Speaker, a point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER: Point of order.
Ms Lee: On relevance: what has that got to do with what we are talking about?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video