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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 561 ..

MS TUCKER

There did seem to be an unseemly haste and enthusiasm for this idea, and I will not guess at the reason for that, but there was certainly not proper or rigorous analysis. The community were justifiably concerned about this proposal. I sincerely hope the Government will learn something from this report and the comments that have come from this process, but from the tone of the dissenting report I doubt that that will happen.

I will now address Mr Hird's dissenting report. It is quite obvious and of great concern to me that Mr Hird and, I suggest, most, if not all, of his Liberal colleagues are once again showing that they have no respect for the committee system. This dissenting report is another desperate attempt by the Government to create a diversion in order to avoid criticism. The committee have clearly shown in this report that the department's proposal was poorly thought through and that major stakeholders were seriously concerned that it would not deliver good outcomes for work for the dole participants, staff of schools or students.

During the committee hearing the officials changed their proposal as particular evidence was brought to light. I can see it is embarrassing for the Government and the Minister, but this dissenting report does not help their position at all. It makes it worse. For a start, it entirely contradicts the minuted proceedings of deliberation of the committee in which Mr Hird indicated support for four of six of the recommendations of this report. How can you possibly write a dissenting report which is in total contradiction of the minuted proceedings of deliberation within the committee? The dissenting report is written as if Mr Hird were not present at the hearings or private meetings. Now, how could that be, I wonder? Has Mr Hird been given instructions from upstairs? Did he even write the dissenting report?

We have already had similar concerns expressed in this place in debate on the superannuation committee, and I can tell you one thing - whoever wrote that dissenting report was obviously having a bad day or did not do their homework. I could take a guess at who it was in the Minister's office, but we are told that we are not supposed to mention names in this place; that it is bad form. Well, I can say I think it is very bad form to continually see what are important and well-understood conventions regarding committee processes in this place continually ignored by this Government.

I know that standing order 241 is loosely worded, but that does not mean it is okay to ignore it. What about the intent of the standing order? Does that not matter? This is, of course, a question of ethics. It is obvious to me that, because of this Government's approach and disregard for the obvious intent of standing order 241, we need to look at it in the Administration and Procedure Committee, and I give notice now that I will put such a motion on the notice paper. I actually did make these comments at the end of the last Assembly as well when a similar situation arose.

Mr Hird's dissenting report says:

I wish to record my dissent from the tone, content and conclusions of the report. I dissent from the report as a whole.

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