Page 2480 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
around the world for accountability. That is a shame, because we are going to debate later in the day that after 20 years of self-government we are capable of governing our own affairs. We will look at it.
The question is: why is this minister bigger than the Assembly and its committees? The question is: was it ego that said, “I do not have to return,” or was it cowardice, or was it both? The minister needs to go and the Chief Minister needs to go away and re-read the ministerial code of conduct of which at least two sections have been breached by this minister. The code of conduct says that if you cannot live by the code of conduct, then you should resign. The Westminster system says you are responsible to the parliament.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Treasurer, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Services and Minister for Women) (3.39): When you turn to the Select Committee on Estimates and the resolution of the appointment, the Assembly resolved on 2 April to establish a Select Committee on Estimates to examine the expenditure proposal contained in the Appropriation Bill 2009-2010 and the revenue estimates proposed by the government in the 2009-10 budget. It then goes on to specify membership of that committee and a reporting date, but nowhere in this does it have, through its resolution of appointment, the ability to scrutinise decisions made in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2007, which is what you were recalling Minister Barr to consider.
I went to that committee in the recall. I am perusing the Hansard and I said there that I disagreed with the committee’s request to recall me. I did not think I should have been recalled on this matter. However, I did take the view that the car park was appropriated in the previous budget. Therefore, there was a link for me as the Minister for Health with the capital asset development program as part of an ongoing capital works program. There was a link and a responsibility for me to attend. But I go on to say that I am very comfortable with Andrew’s view that use or non-use of his ministerial calling, as it was then, is not subject to scrutiny by the estimates committee.
What the estimates committee got was the minister with responsibility for the car park, for the capital works and, indeed, the minister responsible for writing the letter requesting the planning minister to consider using his call-in powers. In fact, in my letter, which members have, it is stated:
The basis of our request for use of your call-in powers is to avoid potential delays to this major project that could arise from a possible appeal in the ACAT by one or more of the objectors to the DAs.
It then goes on to explain what impact that delay would have on the overall development of the hospital rebuild on the Canberra Hospital site. It then also goes to the fact that the issues raised through the community consultation period, and let us remember there was a pre-DA community consultation period here, were relatively minor and they were either able to be addressed in full by ACT Health or, indeed, they were not going to be addressed at all.
These are the issues that the opposition say they cannot make their minds up on. They have not got enough information about whether or not the call in is actually something
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .