Page 848 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for an inquiry into workers compensation. You will recall this recommendation was deleted from the final report.” I would not necessarily have an issue with that, except for the fact that the day before, on the Monday, we finalised this report and I do not recall Mr Mulcahy saying that he was going to be putting in a written dissenting report. I could be wrong about that—it could be my lack of recollection—but he certainly did not state it strongly enough for me to recall that.
I do recall that, in the preceding week when we were deliberating on this report, Mr Mulcahy put this forward as a recommendation in the chair’s draft. I have no issue with that. We did have a brief conversation. But Dr Foskey has rightly pointed out that this was not presented as a major issue to the committee, and the majority of the committee deemed that that recommendation was not appropriate.
There is no problem with Mr Mulcahy putting in a dissenting report with a recommendation that he feels needs to go in. But, as I recall, at the time my comment on it was that it was not for the committee to be directing the government as to their budgetary deliberations, and that was my reason for not supporting the recommendation. Mr Mulcahy has always had it open to him to put in a dissenting report with the recommendation. However, he does not need to sneak about the corridors to do it. That is not the way to gain the respect of your colleagues in this place. It gains no respect whatsoever and it shows a complete disregard for his fellow members on the committee.
This is not the first time this committee has had issues with Mr Mulcahy’s behaviour on the committee, and I believe that Mr Mulcahy has been allowed a lot of latitude. But I am saying here and now that Mr Mulcahy, as the chair of this committee, has an obligation to deal appropriately and fairly with the rest of the committee.
On a more pleasant note, I also would like to thank Ms Andrea Cullen for her work. The PAC has a very heavy workload, as do all public accounts committees throughout the country. The committee is required to deal with Auditor-General’s reports, with other inquiries from time to time as we deem fit and, of course, with annual and financial reports, a number of which come to the committee. So I know that Ms Andrea Cullen has a very heavy workload and I do appreciate the professionalism that she brings to the job of secretary and thank her for that work.
In finishing, I reiterate my earlier comments, now that Mr Mulcahy has come back into the chamber. I urge him to take note of what I have said.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (12.07): I want to respond to that diatribe that was just presented to the Assembly. I take personal exception to the use of the term “Mr Mulcahy has acted in a sneaky fashion”. I think that is offensive. The fact of the matter is that in—
Mr Stanhope: Is it true, though?
MR MULCAHY: No, it is not true, Mr Stanhope. The fact of the matter is that I was considering the dissenting report subject to advice. I took advice from Mr Duncan, the Clerk, who canvassed with me various procedural issues about this and whether the matters had been considered, which they had been. In terms of the so-called filibuster, I seek leave to table a guide note from the committee office—it was a draft—in which I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .