Page 3331 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
investigation under the act. So those members of the board are independent appointments; they are not public servants. What is Mr Seselja really saying? What is he saying about those five members of the board? They are not public service members; they are independent appointments.
Mr Seselja: You’ve got to tell the truth, Simon. That’s incorrect. At least one member is a public servant.
MR CORBELL: I know Mr Seselja is embarrassed by this, Mr Speaker. He is embarrassed that he failed to include in his speech any reference to the board. Where was Mr Seselja’s reference to the board in his strong and powerful argument that this was a flawed process? Did he mention the board once? No, he failed to mention it. He seems to think that the CEO, over the other five members of the board—
Mrs Dunne: No, other four, Simon. He’s the fifth member. He is a public servant.
MR CORBELL: has some capacity to have sway over the board. Mr Speaker, if you follow the logic of the Liberal Party’s argument, which is, “Okay, the CEO is on the board, therefore the other four members have no say,” you will see what an absurd argument it is. The fact is that there are independent members of that board who are in the majority on the board, they have authorised powers to investigate matters under the act, and they are not public servants.
So what is the Liberal Party’s argument? Haven’t they read the act? Don’t they understand that the overwhelming majority of the board are not public servants and that they are independent appointments? What is Mr Seselja saying here—that that entire board is capable of being completely directed by the whim of the minister? They are independent statutory officers under the act. They have responsibilities under the act. And the government has every confidence that they will exercise their responsibilities accordingly and appropriately under the act. So there are simply no grounds whatsoever for that argument from the Liberal Party.
As Ms Gallagher said in the debate earlier today, at the end of the day it is quite clear what the Liberal Party are attempting to do here. This is a politically motivated attack by the Liberal Party. It is a matter that is properly within the realm of the Gambling and Racing Commission to determine as it sees fit, in terms of investigation, in terms of consideration and in terms of whether it believes there have been any breaches of any relevant laws or regulations. That is entirely a matter which is properly within the realm of the Gambling and Racing Commission.
Ms Hunter’s amendment obviously has due regard to that. Ms Hunter’s amendment recognises that it is indeed the role of the commission to determine these matters, and the government believes that that is an entirely appropriate course of action.
The Liberal Party need to understand that they can attempt to play policemen on this issue, but the government’s view is that there is a policeman, the Gambling and Racing Commission, and they should determine these matters as they see fit, and we have every confidence that they will do so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .