Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 507 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
He said that he had written to Mr McLeod to confirm the information he had received. As you see, Mr Speaker, there are concerns now from the union about how this inquiry will be conducted. The union went on to ask the following questions:
How will Mr McLeod resolve disputes of fact contained in the reports he receives if he cannot call and question the authors?
If Mr McLeod cannot resolve disputes of fact, and cannot view the demeanour of the authors, how will he decide which account is correct?
How will Mr McLeod choose the written submission on a topic, that he is going to accept?.
The letter continues:
The union is also very concerned about what these "briefing sessions"with executive officers entail. We would ask: who is briefing whom and about what? What purpose can such "briefing sessions"serve? One inference is that the ACT Government seeks special access to Mr McLeod, over other interested parties.
I will finish with the final paragraph of the letter, which says:
I would respectfully submit that your government consider holding this inquiry under existing inquiries legislation, so that it is undertaken in a manner that will give it credibility and acceptance in the community.
That raises the issue of independence, Mr Speaker, because at the Public Accounts Committee hearing into Appropriation Bill 2002-2003 (No 2) on Wednesday afternoon, at about quarter to 4, we were questioning the head of Chief Minister's about how it was determined that $400,000 would be adequate for the McLeod inquiry. An issue was whether Mr McLeod had been consulted. The head of Chief Minister's said:
We didn't talk to him about-we haven't spoken to him in any detail about how he proposes to conduct the Inquiry, the question of whether there are public hearings is a matter for Mr McLeod, so we have-what we've put is an estimate here of the costs, what we estimate to be the costs of conducting this activity, it is not an Inquiry under the Inquiries Act and it does not have the panoply of costs associated with such an endeavour.
The reason I raise that, Mr Speaker, is that some time after that, one would assume, so that it could be published in the Canberra Times the next morning, the Chief Minister's office was actually speaking on behalf of Mr McLeod. At a quarter to 4 in the afternoon of the Wednesday they had not spoken to Mr McLeod as they could not direct him because of his independence, but by the time the paper is printed the next morning we have the following quote:
A spokesman for Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said yesterday that people could mark their submissions "private"or "confidential"if they believed they needed extra protection.
She said Mr McLeod would review all submissions and refer those raising potentially sensitive issues to the head of the Chief Minister's Department-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .