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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1215 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I will make a comment on the political response to these allegations. Those bureaucrats are also seeking to stop the tabling of the report through the court. In that context, it was a distraction from the systematic and individual issues raised in the Gallop report that the senior bureaucrats adversely named in that report sought an injunction against the publication of the report, and on laying it, or any part of it, before the Assembly.

If Mr Humphries brings his bill on for debate next week, we may explore how best to grant privilege to reports from a commission of inquiry. However, it was a real concern for the Greens that the court was prepared to issue an injunction against the Chief Minister in regard to his attempt in the Assembly. It would have been interesting if the Government Solicitor had challenged that injunction, as we were not comfortable with the court seeking to affect what goes on in our parliament to this extent. It was for that reason that I was outspoken on the issue of the courts and privilege.

I was surprised to see that both the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were prepared to make a decision regarding the merit of the allegations of procedural unfairness before there was any formal examination of these allegations. Yes, there were rebuttal statements, but that is hardly a thorough examination of the whole matter.

Regardless of the result of such an examination, the questions of accountability and responsibility still have to be addressed. What is the expectation of the community? Where does ministerial responsibility in this matter lie? Mr Humphries asked, if he were on the side of government, what would we be doing? I might be moving a censure motion. I might be also doing that if Mr Moore was still here. Ministerial responsibility definitely has to be brought into this discussion.

Regarding accountability, should senior public servants take responsibility or not? I think they should, if it is clear that there have been serious failures in a system. Let me stress that I do not think community public life will benefit if recourse becomes simply revenge. Fairness is an important value that must be made central to any part of the questioning. Yes, fairness should be applied to the examination of people in responsible positions. However, equally fairness must be central in the final analysis of what is in the public interest when decisions are made about developing the findings of such an inquiry.

I have to say, there has been real concern about the fairness of the system that was the subject of the Gallop inquiry. As other members have said, there is concern about whether the system has been fair to people who are very disempowered and vulnerable in our community. Mr Stanhope and Mr Humphries apparently support the majority of the recommendations of the Gallop report, which means they agree that the system is in a seriously bad condition. Yet they seem to be willing to leave in charge those who were in charge of that planning system in the past.

The question of whether there has been procedural fairness has to be dealt with. I reserve any judgment and do not enter into that matter at this point in time. However, I find it very concerning that both sides of the house have been so willing to pre-empt the formal procedure for determining whether or not procedures were unfair.

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