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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4326 ..

obviously a complaint against the department, or a range of allegations against the department, which had then, I presume from Mrs Burke’s questioning over the past two weeks, led to a public interest disclosure.

When I was briefed by the department on, I think, 26 July that there was a public interest disclosure—in fact, I think from that brief there were two public interest disclosures—the advice in that brief was that, as there is no role for the minister in a public interest disclosure, it was quite appropriate that the public interest disclosure not be brought to my attention.

Mrs Burke: You knew of its existence, though.

MS GALLAGHER: We can go through public interest disclosure AO1. There are guidelines on everyone’s computer, if they want to have a look at it. You can read the law; there is a very easy-step diagram with little arrows—step one; going to step two; going to step three. If you look at it, you will see that there is no role for the minister to be involved in this. When a public interest disclosure is made to the department the department cannot, and should not, brief their minister on the allegations of that public interest disclosure. The department has acted in accordance with the legislation as required. It would have been highly inappropriate of them to have brought those allegations and that matter to my attention—one, because I have no role; and, two, if they had brought them to my attention, then it could have been perceived that I was getting involved in something that I could not be involved in.

Let us hope that this answers all the questions once and for all. I doubt it. We might get another person jumping up. I am waiting for the shadow education spokesperson to ask me a question around this. On reflection—I have gone through the question times for this year—I have not had one question from him; not one. There are four members of the opposition who are competing to be shadow education spokesperson: there is Mrs Burke, Mr Cornwell, Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Dunne—all on about three or four questions apiece and none from the shadow education spokesperson. But we might get one from you. I look forward to it.

There it is: public interest AO1—no role for the minister; the department did not need to tell me about it; they did not tell me about it. This investigation just has to be allowed to run its course without constant interference from the opposition.

MRS BURKE: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, given that you knew of the existence of the PID, which of your statements of 3 and 4 August 2004, in this place, was correct and which one is incorrect—that you knew absolutely nothing about this matter, or that your department has kept you fully informed of important issues? Which is it?

MR SPEAKER: That sounds a lot like yesterday’s question.

MS GALLAGHER: Yes, it is a lot like yesterday’s question, and I think every question time in August. Both those statements are correct. As usual, the opposition selectively read from the Hansard about my answers.

Mrs Burke: And you selectively answer!

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