Page 1909 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is not a hanging offence, and the opposition has admitted to me that, as a stand-alone element, it would not be enough to warrant toppling a chief minister, which is what this motion in its original form seeks to do. It is, however, a matter of some concern. A more polished and open performance by the government in the estimates process would have avoided much of the drama of the last week, its disruption to the work of the Assembly, the interference, obviously, with the budget process and the creation of a perception by many people in the Canberra community that we all went on a week’s holiday. If only we had that luxury!
Whilst I acknowledge that the Chief Minister’s letter of 19 July and Mr Mackay’s response make it clear that the broad position of Mr Stanhope during the estimates process is, in fact, correct, the Chief Minister made other statements during the hearings that certainly contradicted evidence that exists in written documents. Because of this, I do believe that there is cause for a censure of the Chief Minister over this issue.
I also agree with comments that others have already made that the selective release of some documents by the government has been somewhat disappointing. I recognise that there is some material that is not appropriate for release under the Freedom of Information Act. I do believe that the Chief Minister’s decision to release some material to the media reduces his ability to rely on this form of defence.
The Chief Minister should not be in a position to say, “I do not decide what is released under the FOI Act,” which he was adamant to point out when I raised this issue in estimates. “It is the department,” he said and then turned around and provided to the media some of those same documents under executive authority. I do find an inconsistency in this approach.
Just as much of the controversy over this whole issue could have been avoided by a more open performance during the estimates process, if the government had been more open in their release of material under the FOI request, albeit it is being attributed to officials who made these decisions, it would have allayed fears in the community and made the process more open and accountable. I believe that this, too, is some basis for a censure of the Chief Minister.
My amendment also removes Dr Foskey’s points about the health and environmental impacts of the proposal. I accept the government’s point that, if the process was allowed to continue, all of the necessary environmental aspects would have been considered before any approval was granted. I said this at the outset of the debate and I continue to hold that view. I believe that this is a process that should be allowed to run its course.
I do not accept the argument that this project should have been treated differently from others because of its size and scope. We have planning process that should be followed and allowed to run their course. I, therefore, do not accept Dr Foskey’s addition to the list of charges against the Chief Minister, and my amendment seeks to remove it. I think, essentially, we have to protect the planning process. We do not want a situation that has now started to occur in Tasmania, where every project is derailed because some interest group complains. (Time expired.)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .