Page 235 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
appropriation bill, we failed the test. If you refer back to the meetings that we have had, was it that urgent? I am not sure.
To day two, then: the day started in a similar vein, where we had statements of openness and accountability. Indeed, I refer to Ms Hunter’s inaugural speech where she talked about Greens principles, open and participatory government. Ms Le Couteur in her speech commended the leadership and courage of Dr Foskey. Mr Smyth eloquently discussed how Dr Foskey had fought in the last Assembly for the release of this document. I fear that, although we have had the rhetoric saying that she was courageous and she showed leadership, already the crossbench is failing to live up to those ideals.
Ms Hunter then introduced a bill for an act to amend the Education Act. I rightly agree with her. She criticised the government for the ongoing secrecy of documents related to school closures. So she certainly is saying to us that she supports more open and accountable release of documents by the government, but maybe not in this case or not now.
We then move to the motion from Ms Bresnan on human rights. There was some eloquent debate from a number of members. It was about the underlying principle of democracy and open government. One of the principles when you are talking about human rights is that justice delayed is justice denied. I think that, in this case, to deny the release of this document denies the ability of the opposition and the crossbench and the community to examine the underlying reasons for a number of the decisions that have been made by this government.
If the government, supported by the crossbench, is going to rush through appropriation bills that have, as a large part of their rationale, this particular document, why is it then not the case that we would have a look at this document straight away? It seems to be odd that we would rush through an appropriation bill, something that is going to impact on people’s lives, whilst we are going to delay the measure that is very much to the heart of accountability, which is the underlying reasons for the decisions that have been made in a large part of that appropriation bill.
In conclusion, I say that this Assembly now has another test; it has a test again on whether it is rhetoric, whether it is a matter of posturing or whether this Assembly is truly going to be what it purports to be—that is, a house of account where we are going to embrace more open and accountable government.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.25): We will not be supporting this amendment. Mr Smyth has outlined a number of the reasons. I pre-empted some of those in my initial speech, and I certainly put these views to Greens members privately. The amendment essentially does not even call for the document to be delivered. It is a curiously drafted amendment because it says, “We won’t support a call for the Chief Minister to table the document but we will say that if he doesn’t table it, and we haven’t asked him, we should go through this other process.” I think they would have been better off simply voting against the motion as a whole, because I do not think this amendment makes any sense, and we certainly cannot support it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .