Page 2808 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
it did not get up. It is interesting, isn’t it? That is the approach. You have a coroner, an independent coroner, a member of the judiciary, and somehow she is part of the conspiracy against Jon Stanhope; she must be part of the conspiracy against Jon Stanhope. He attacks her because he believes he is not getting a fair deal simply because it is not going his way—simply because it is not going his way.
Mr Stanhope: What was that Canberra Times headline again? “Stanhope vindicated” I think it read, didn’t it? “Stanhope vindicated” is what it said.
MR SESELJA: He was hoping for a “vindicated” headline today and he did not get it. This is his form. He attacks the independent umpire. He did it with the coroner and now he is trying to do it with the Auditor-General.
We in the Liberal Party are saying, “No; we will not stand for it.” We will stand up to him. It is important that this Assembly stand up to him. That is why I think that it is very important that the Assembly and committees consider Mr Smyth’s bill as part of this process. It is critically important that we take this out of the hands of Jon Stanhope. We know what he wants to do to the Auditor-General. He wants to see the funding run down; he wants to see fewer performance audits. He wants to see less scrutiny, because he does not like it.
We saw his response to the coroner. It was outrageous. He attacked her personally. The court action questioned fundamentally her integrity, which was a low moment in the history of the ACT. We had the Attorney-General of this place, the Chief Minister of this place, attacking, without foundation, the integrity of a coroner.
We see the misunderstanding of this Chief Minister in today’s Canberra Times. Mr Smyth has touched on this, but it is worth reflecting on it for a moment. Mr Stanhope rejected Mr Smyth’s proposal. He is reported as saying:
… every agency and department could argue that to maintain independence from the executive the Assembly should set its budget.
What a stupid comment. What a ridiculous comment. What part of the Auditor-General’s statutory role does Mr Stanhope not understand? Comparing the Auditor-General to the department of education or the Department of Health is ridiculous. It is ridiculous. The Auditor-General is not a department. The Auditor-General is not a part of government.
Ms Porter: You are missing the point too, I am afraid.
MR SESELJA: Ms Porter interjects. She is defending Mr Stanhope’s comments that, if the Auditor-General were given some independence in funding, the head of the department of education would come and say, “We want independence,” and the head of the Department of Health would come and say, “We want independence for our funding.” It is ridiculous. It is a stupid argument. It is not backed by a shred of evidence. They are in a different category. The Auditor-General is independent, set up by legislation to inquire into government activity to ensure that we improve accountability. It is not the same as a department that answers to a minister and works for a minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .