Page 2485 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
he could have said and done, and even now could have said and done. One of them would be to sincerely apologise to the Assembly for the contempt in which he held the committee, to sincerely apologise to the members of the committee and, through the members of the committee, to the Assembly and the people of the ACT because he holds them in contempt. He is here because he held people in contempt. That is why Mr Seselja’s motion should be supported. I am very disappointed to see the amendment brought by Ms Le Couteur because it substantially waters down this matter.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (3.58): I would just like to reiterate some words said earlier by Ms Le Couteur when she moved her amendment. The Assembly cannot do its work if those who are elected to serve it fail to do so, and the integrity of the government which depends on the Assembly for its legitimacy comes into question.
The Greens take the processes and privileges of parliament very seriously and the decision taken by Minister Barr not to appear before his colleagues at the estimates committee hearing causes the Greens a good deal of concern. Minister Barr does his government and the people of Canberra a grave disservice by treating the committees of this place with less than the level of respect they deserve.
The history of procedure and precedent is that when members of the committee recall a fellow colleague, the member in question show the Assembly, its members and the ACT community the respect of appearing to help or answer questions, where possible. Invited, recalled or ordered are all derived with the same clear sentiment, and that is the requirement of the committee and the Assembly for assistance with the matter that is critical and important to the residents of the ACT that we are here to serve. The action of refusal was disrespectful.
We understand that Minister Barr is bound by section 158 of the Planning and Development Act 2007. However, he could not pre-empt the exact questions of the committee. There may have been questions that he could have answered to help the committee in their scrutiny process that would not have compromised his decision process. He could have chosen to attend as a measure of respect and explained in person to the committee that when asked questions—and I quote from his letter of 4 June 2009 to the estimates committee—“that would inevitably anticipate the issues presently before me” he could not answer them.
For Mrs Dunne’s information and Mr Seselja’s information and for the information of the Liberals, Ms Le Couteur’s amendment on behalf of the Greens to admonish Minister Barr is intended to reprimand firmly. In fact, on advice provided to us by the Clerk’s office, it has been used in practice. It is a strong signal that respect for the procedures and requests of the Assembly are vital if we are to deliver accountable governance for the ACT.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.01): Mr Speaker, this censure motion is fundamentally misplaced. It is misplaced and misconceived because it fails to properly appreciate the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .