Page 3075 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
says in his letter that at the meeting on 2 November, which he did not attend, large slabs of extra material were tabled by Mr Humphries. The information tabled by Mr Humphries has been referred to already, and all members, including Ms Ellis and Mrs Grassby, who were present at the meeting, had time to read and comment on the material. Subsequently, at the meeting of 5 November, the material proposed by Mr Humphries was amended by the committee, with me as chair trying to second guess the statements which may have been found to be objectionable, as at that stage no written comments had been forwarded to me or the committee secretary by Mr Lamont at any time.
To address the first letter, Mr Lamont first advised me that he would be unable to meet on the morning of Thursday, 5 November, to discuss the report of the Estimates Committee on the afternoon of Wednesday, 4 November, during the public hearings of the Social Policy Committee at which I was present. I indicated to Mr Lamont that I felt that the scheduled meeting, as decided on Monday, 2 November, should proceed, but that there was some merit in the proposal that the committee meet again on Friday, 6 November, to discuss any final concerns. It was the committee's decision at the meeting of 5 November to adopt the report. As I had no written material on amendments from Ms Ellis, Mrs Grassby or Mr Lamont to refer to at the meeting to relay their concerns to other members, the committee felt, quite rightly, I believe, that further comments should be received as additional or dissenting remarks. Mr Lamont says that minority reports should not dispute evidentiary fact; yet none was brought forward to the attention of the committee by Mr Lamont.
Mr Lamont calls into question the whole of the report on the basis of the evidence he has provided and accuses the committee, and presumably me, of lacking due attention to proper processes. On the basis of what I have said in this chamber today I totally and utterly reject this claim. I believe it to be reprehensible of Mr Lamont to comment as he has done, while not attending, himself, the meetings scheduled for 2 November and 5 November to discuss the report. To address Mr Lamont's specific references, paragraph 3.85 does not concern the Speaker's travel. Are you listening, Mr Lamont?
Mr Lamont: Yes, I am.
MS SZUTY: Paragraph 3.85 outlines recommendations concerning the adoptions unit. There is no second sentence or final sentence in paragraph 3.87. There is no first sentence in paragraph 3.88. Paragraphs 3.89 and 3.9 do not relate to the corresponding paragraphs of the report.
I have commented at length on the additional comments provided by Ms Ellis, Mrs Grassby and Mr Lamont. I reject totally and utterly the suggestion that due processes were not followed in the adoption of the report. I reject totally and utterly the suggestion that some of the statements expressed in the report are political in nature. Where sensitive statements have been made, they have been entirely supported by examples from the transcripts. Unfortunately, I cannot reject totally and utterly purported inaccuracies in the report. The ACT Ombudsman's Office has advised me in a letter dated 13 November that an error exists on page 39, in paragraph 4.13. As a result of this letter a corrigendum has been circulated - I hope that it is available to members - deleting the words "in relation to the ACT Ombudsman's Office". I would like to thank the ACT Ombudsman's Office for drawing this error to my attention and I hope that the error has not caused any undue embarrassment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .