Page 2065 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I simply want to conclude by reflecting on the scurrilous efforts of the Chief Minister to twist my words and his willingness to distort what I said. I was very deliberate in my choice. I was not questioning whether arbitration is a good process. I very clearly said:
We have said that we will accept and abide by the arbiter’s decision, and we will.
I was very clear in saying that. The Greens, in setting up this process, want to avoid the costly and lengthy legal battles which could ensue by not having an independent arbitration process.
Nor did I question the credentials of Sir Laurence Street. As Mr Stanhope pointed out, as the Speaker I was responsible for appointing Sir Laurence Street. I chose him very deliberately as a well-credentialled, well-recognised and respected former member of the judiciary.
What I was exploring in my speech was whether we had got this exactly right. Mr Corbell went to some lengths to say that this is a Greens process, and that is true. We encouraged this place to adopt this as a process that would save the ACT taxpayers’ money and provide a dispute resolution mechanism for this place when we come to these sorts of matters.
But I am quite comfortable to stand here and say that this is the system we set up and maybe now we need to tweak it, having actually used it. I am not embarrassed to walk into this place and say that maybe we did not get it exactly right the first time. I acknowledge Mrs Dunne’s nuanced comments in reflecting on that in making those observations. I am not embarrassed by that. The Greens have made considerable efforts to find a good process here. We accept that maybe we now need to make some adjustments.
That was the point I was trying to discuss. The government understands that, because all the changes to the standing orders that have been made in this term have been temporary. I can only assume that the rationale is that we need to make sure they work properly—not that the government hopes to win a majority next time and get rid of them all again.
I was also noting in my speech, and I think this is where the tensions rose, that the ALP, in making their submission to the arbiter, really put only one side of the story. I was questioning whether we needed to move from an adversarial process to perhaps an inquisitorial brief for the independent arbiter. I was not questioning whether we have an arbiter or not.
I would like to clarify the distortions the Chief Minister attempted to make of my earlier words. I was simply making two points. Is this process spot-on? Seemingly not. We may need to have a discussion amongst all of us about whether we can refine it to make it more like what our expectations were. Mrs Dunne’s comments that they did not make a submission to the arbiter—they did not believe they could—is an example of the fact that we have probably not quite set this up right.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .