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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 937 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Hird in his dissenting report. I hope that is not the Government's position and that we will actually see a genuine attempt by the Government to look at the issues that have been raised in the report. It was far from a throwaway line from the AEU. It seems to me that the AEU does more work than the Government on half the issues of concern around education.

Mr Hird, in his dissenting report, raised a number of concerns about the committee not going into a lot of detail on capital works. Mr Berry commented on that. I have to agree with Mr Berry's comments. Mr Hird did not raise this issue in committee. He had the opportunity to do so. He may recall that we did talk about capital works in the private briefing. He did not at any point in the committee's proceedings make a big issue of it. We were not given any evidence by the community to raise concerns about it and Mr Hird did not raise it as an issue, so it was not something that we addressed in any detail.

The dissenting report is really of a very poor standard in terms of how the arguments are put. There are some quite serious allegations in it if you care about the calibre of work of committees. He keeps talking about unsound methods. I am assuming that he is talking about the problem he had with having the Minister speak first. I have addressed that issue. At one point in the dissenting report Mr Hird says that earlier evidence given by the Minister contradicted evidence of other witnesses and that we had chosen to take the view of the other witnesses. It is meaningless and really silly to put such a thing in a dissenting report if you do not substantiate it with examples. How can anyone respond to it? (Extension of time granted)

I think members would be happy to give leave to Mr Hird to explain why he is making these accusations. If he told us specifically what evidence he is talking about here, I could respond because I do take the responsibility of chairing a committee seriously. I am interested in criticism and I am interested in looking at how we can work better, but I have no idea what he is talking about here. He really does need to be much clearer if he is making such a strong statement of criticism of the committee.

Mr Hird said in his speech that Mr Berry and I were pushing our own barrows, once again. That is an allegation that is worth substantiating with evidence. Unfortunately, it is just a line. I have explained the evidence. The evidence is attached. The Government's response is attached.

Mr Stefaniak: I take a point of order on the use of the word "lie" in referring to another member of the Assembly. I think that it should be withdrawn.

MR SPEAKER: If the word "lie" was used, please withdraw it.

Mr Berry: No, she used the word "line".

MS TUCKER: I did not say "lie".

Mr Stefaniak: I am sorry.

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