Page 2478 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
planning act.” Yes, we did. But we also all voted for the standing orders, and standing order 258 states:
If a committee desires the attendance of a Member as a witness, the Chair of the committee shall, in writing, request that Member to attend …
Done.
… should the Member refuse to come, or to give evidence or information as a witness to the committee, the committee shall advise the Assembly …
Done. What we are doing today following the standing orders is holding this minister to account. This debate is about the behaviour of the minister, not a debate about the planning act. This debate is about whether or not he has respect for the institutions of the Assembly. The answer is clearly no. He holds himself above the standing orders. What we now find out is that the whole cabinet felt the same way. “Do not go, mate. You do not have to.” This is a serious issue. This has not happened in 20 years of the Assembly, and my concern with the amendment as moved by the Greens is, as Ms Le Couteur said, that it is a slap on the wrist. We are going to give the minister a slap on the wrist. Ms Le Couteur said, it is about disrespect. Yes, you are right, and I quote the ministerial code of conduct again:
Ministers will act with respect towards the institution of the Legislative Assembly …
Part of that institution is the committee system, which represents the Assembly. We are there as part of a vote of the committee system. We now know why he did not want to return. He had no justification for this call in. What he should have just said is “we are calling it in to stop all objections”. Instead, he invented this nonsense, this confection that there were political issues, there were frivolous issues here. As the committee got to it when it talked to the minister, the minister did not hold with that case.
It is interesting that the minister said there was also an appendix to her document, which has not yet been tabled. I asked that that be sent through, because it would be interesting to have the full detail from your side of the case. Then we can make a proper judgement on the actions of the minister in regard to the planning act.
That may be something that has to be done later, but today is about whether or not the Stanhope-Gallagher government, and the ministers of that government, who are all aware of the ministerial code of conduct, who are all aware of the standing orders of this place, have the courage to live up to their commitment.
The answer is that Mr Barr does not. His cowardice will mark him in this place as the first minister to refuse to come and give evidence, to be recalled. He is the first minister to disobey the standing orders, the first minister to show disrespect to that particular institution of the Assembly of the ACT. That is shameful.
Mr Speaker, what he said was, “I took firm and decisive action.” Well, why could you not be firm and decisive and come back to the committee and tell them why? Why
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .