Page 2305 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is not just us; it is not just members of the committee and the committee as a whole that made these kinds of conclusions. We heard from Minister Barr, as education minister, whose comments are noted by the committee. He said:
It would have been improper for me as minister to have sought advantage for my political party in relation to such a request.
So Minister Barr said that what Ms Gallagher did in requesting that of the Chief Executive Officer of ACT Health would have been improper. It was inappropriate and we see strong conclusions from the committee but we also see not one shred of documentary evidence. And just to repeat that:
The Committee considers such action, without due process, leaves open the conclusion that government agency resources have been improperly used for party political purposes, and the inclusion of staff in the advertisements may create an unnecessary appearance of conflict of interest.
The committee goes on:
The Committee notes with concern the use of ACT government facilities for political purposes and the involvement of both Ministers and Ministerial staff in the organisation of their use, and is very concerned with direct Ministerial influence on using facilities and staff in this way, and the misuse and conflict of interest this process inherently engenders.
It is worth drawing a distinction somewhat. We heard from the minister for education—and I have quoted him—that it would have been improper. Indeed we had Janet Davy, who was acting head of the department, make the statement in fact that she would not approve such a request because it would have been a conflict of interest. We later saw a correction and, to Ms Davy’s credit, I do not think there was any implication that that had been in any way anything other than an inadvertent mislead. But she did come back and correct the record and, in correcting the record, she identified that in fact Minister Barr, through his chief of staff, had actually done that. So Minister Barr said it was inappropriate; he said what Ms Gallagher had done essentially was inappropriate; but apparently also it was happening with him. It was one step removed but it was his chief of staff requesting such use.
Also we note the difference between what happened with the department of education and what happened with the department of health. There was documentary evidence to back it up and there were some restrictions placed on the use. Whilst we think that was a far from ideal process, it was better than what was demonstrated in the department of health.
One of the clearest examples of misuse of power is the email from the Chief Minister’s office which, according to the committee, “instructed several government departments to take action, including to produce the advertisement, a media release and a letter to the editor attacking the reporting”. The committee continued:
The Committee is concerned about the role of the public service in this matter and the resulting politicisation of the public service.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .