Page 2306 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As a result, the committee recommends that “the executive refrain from ordering government agencies to place advertisements, or write letters attacking reporters where they feel personally aggrieved”. It is extraordinary that the committee would have to make such a finding and such a recommendation. I repeat:
The Committee is concerned about the role of the public service in this matter and the resulting politicisation of the public service.
We are seeing it, unfortunately, across the board. We are seeing the ministers putting public servants in difficult positions where they have to walk the fine line between partisan political activity and their legitimate role as servants of the ACT people and serving them as faithfully as they possibly can. That committee recommendation, I think, is worth particular attention. (Extension of time granted.)
We saw the issue of the FOI exemptions, and I will not go into too much detail on that because that will now no doubt be a matter which is considered by the privileges committee.
Ms Gallagher: No, it will not be.
MR SESELJA: It will, in part. I will touch on it. We saw and noted the words “cellar door” and “vineyard” were blacked out in an email, ostensibly under section 41 of the FOI Act, in that the words related to personal details. The committee questioned what justification existed for their deletion and, indeed, I personally questioned what justification there is for the deletion of those words.
Ms Gallagher: So you have appealed the decision, I presume, Zed, in accordance with the FOI Act?
MR SESELJA: I will. I am but that is a separate process. Thank you.
Dealing with contempt, the committee noted in several instances the use of techniques by this government that are concerning in the most serious way as they speak of a direct contempt for the committee system. This is the third consistent theme to emerge as a result of this committee process. The task of deciphering these techniques was not assisted by the inconsistent evidence presented to the committee.
On contradictory evidence, the committee noted that in relation to land rent “concerns were raised about the contradiction in the evidence provided to it and the facts on the record presented to the committee”. The committee went on:
It was apparent in several instances the documentary evidence trail was not consistent with testimony given to the committee.
It is, once again, very serious that we are seeing contradictions between documentary evidence and what was presented to the committee. We saw it in a number of cases. Sometimes it was corrected; sometimes it was not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .