Page 2491 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stanhope: But, on the point of order—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Chief Minister, sit down. I have heard you enough, and you are delaying the matter.
Mr Stanhope: No, I am asking for your interpretation of standing—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Chief Minister, sit down!
Mr Stanhope: Well, the Clerk just nodded that you can give your interpretation of standing order 258.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Chief Minister, sit down. I have given my ruling on this. Sit down.
MR HANSON: To clarify the issue, what I was referring to was the fact that standing orders are the subject of the matter here—that is, the refusal of Mr Barr to attend the committee and the fact that that is the subject of standing order 258. That has led to this debate, so I will move on. The Chief Minister is obviously in a somewhat objectionable mood today.
The next matter is the fact that Mr Barr refused to attend a committee after the committee chair asked him to do so and he is, therefore, in contempt of the Assembly. What is the appropriate approach now? I think the opposition and the Greens have demonstrated that he is in contempt of the Assembly. The government is conducting this debate by the sort of questioning we have just seen from the Chief Minister or the defence of the planning process or Katy Gallagher claiming that we are against spending money on public health. I think it is fair to say that we need to send a very strong and clear message that this is unacceptable. If we simply give the minister in this case a slap on the wrist and we do not deal with the matter appropriately, I think we will be encouraging the government in future cases to treat the Assembly and committees with contempt.
I encourage the members here to consider that. I certainly do believe that Mr Barr has been in contempt of the Assembly. Maybe if he had his time again he may have acted otherwise. Based on the debate we have had today, I consider that the appropriate action for us to take is to censure the minister, because that will provide a clearer direction to this government and its ministers on how they should respond.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.20): I would like to first off remind the Chief Minister that any matters relating to expenditure relate to the budget. The car park at the Canberra Hospital was a health and planning matter and, therefore, it was more than appropriate to ask questions of the ministers responsible for those portfolios about a matter which had direct relevance to the expenditure funding in the budget. The Chief Minister himself today said that the appropriation bill is the most important bill of the year and, therefore, the analysis and examination of any matters relating to it are important. Mr Stanhope’s entire speech today showed his attitude towards the estimates process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .