Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1327 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

The Ombudsman has also made a report on this matter under section 34 of the Act. I understand that this occurs when there is some public interest in the matter, and the report is released to the public. Again, the proper process should be to permit full consideration of the recommendations before the matter is debated. If this role is abused for short-term political point-scoring - and I think that is what this motion is about - and if the role of the Ombudsman is politicised in the process of debate in this Assembly, then the role of the Ombudsman herself and the processes that she is obliged to follow immediately come into question, in my view. We are subverting the processes established by law that the Ombudsman is obliged to follow. The Ombudsman must be able to engage in independent review and to anticipate proper responses free from the risks associated with political and media campaigns.

This is not the first time that a section 18 report has been produced by the Ombudsman. In the 1992-93 annual report the Ombudsman referred to two reports of formal investigations under section 18. These related to the then Housing and Community Services Bureau and ACT Forests. The reports highlighted administrative and procedural deficiencies which, I understand, were subsequently addressed by the Government, and properly so.

Mr Stefaniak has told us in quite unequivocal terms of the reasons behind the imperative for decisive action to be taken on the School Without Walls. It takes my breath away to think that Ms Tucker or anyone else can seriously contemplate maintaining a school that was operating in such a way as to seriously compromise the needs and the best interests of its own students. What on earth is this about? Whose interests are we considering here? I will tell you whose interests we are considering. We are considering the political interests of a couple of people who want to keep their profile up with an election just around the corner. I think that that is an appalling state of affairs.

Critical comment concerning administrative decisions by the Ombudsman is not a reasonable basis for censuring a Minister. If that were the case, several Labor Ministers would have been censured over the last five years. It is simply not a reasonable basis. It must surely be a matter of concern to both the Government and the Opposition if we have reached a point where any administration has no opportunity to address matters drawn to its attention by the Ombudsman before its Minister is unjustly condemned by members using any opportunity to score political points. I urge the Opposition to rethink this matter, having regard for the possibility - - -

Mr Berry: We are. That is why we want some time.

MR KAINE: I ask you to rethink it intelligently, Mr Berry, having regard for the possibility that you yourselves may well be put in a similar position if ever you are in government in the future. In my view - and I agree with Mr Moore entirely - the Minister is not deserving of this proposed censure. It will achieve nothing. It will leave a nasty taste in a few people's mouths. It might make a couple of people in this place feel somehow justified, but I do not believe so. This motion should not be supported, and I will not support it.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .