Page 3720 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be serious about it. We are talking about the seriousness of the separation of powers. Nobody has mentioned it. It is news to Mr Smyth because he knows nothing about the doctrine of the separation of powers. He knows nothing about parliamentary process. He is in no position—no position—to talk about propriety.
We could mention a few things. Unfortunately, we have not got the time. We could talk about things that you have said slanderously about me in the public arena for which we could take your house. But you have not done it. You are gutless about those things. You should step down from your own position. (Time expired.)
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (3.52): I just rise to clarify a few of the points that were made earlier by my colleague Ms Bresnan and to address some of the points that have been raised which I think muddy the situation today. First of all, I state quite clearly that the Greens will not be supporting the censure motion. Ms Bresnan has put forward an amendment so that we can have another way forward on this matter.
I want to start by going back to something that Ms Bresnan said in her speech. It is around the ministerial code of conduct and the high standards of probity, accountability, honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of public duties and functions by a minister. She went on to explain that what had happened in this case from our view was that the minister for education had put an interpretation on the statements made by Mr Doszpot, an interpretation that we believe was drawing a very, very, very long bow. In fact, I do not think a bow this long has ever been invented in the history of the world. It looks to me like it is a completely new weapon, and a very clunky one at that. The point was that this interpretation had not just been stated here in the house. The point from, I think, Mr Corbell was along the lines of, “This is lowering the bar. It is really going to be a terrible thing for the Assembly if people can’t get up and have that sort of banter across the Assembly, and that misinterpretation goes on all the time.”
We are not talking about something that happened in this Assembly. We are talking about something that was put into a letter. That letter was sent to an outside agency, in fact a statutory body—the non-government schools council. That misinterpretation was put on ministerial letterhead and sent out there. It was sent out of this place. When people in this place feel a bit offended or feel they have been misrepresented or whatever, there are standing orders within this house that can deal with the situation. That is not the case with the matter before us today. This letter was sent to an outside body. The Greens have thought very carefully about this. As I say, we are not supporting the censure motion, but we do believe that there is a case for the matter to be cleared up. In our amendment we have put forward a number of steps.
I take on Mr Hargreaves’s point at the end when he was getting very concerned about the separation of powers and the doctrine of the separation of powers. I would say to you, Mr Hargreaves, there are steps that can be taken by the minister before the final part of the amendment would kick in, and those steps are for the minister to stand up in this house, to apologise and to correct the record. It is about correcting the record.
If the minister chooses not to do that then we go to the next part of that amendment if it gets up today. I think we need to be very clear. This is not about the argy-bargy and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .