Page 2118 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
• In answering Mrs Dunne, and giving an estimate for the total cost of the project which was no longer current, having been superseded by a significantly higher figure accepted by the ACTEW Corporation Board decision of 13 May 2009, Mr Sullivan was deliberately misleading the committee.
So they were the matters at the core of this hearing. I will get to the findings of the committee in relation to what we were considering there. The findings were:
The committee accepts that Mr Sullivan’s answer to Mr Smyth accurately reflected the actual position at the time with regard to the TOC, that there was no intention to mislead the committee and that no issue of contempt of the Assembly arises with regard to this part of Mr Sullivan’s evidence to the Estimates Committee.
With regard to Mr Sullivan’s answer to Mrs Dunne on the costs of the Murrumbidgee to Googong pipeline project the committee has concluded that, although the figures provided had been superseded, there was no deliberate intention to mislead the committee on Mr Sullivan’s part and thus no contempt was committed.
I would like to point out a number of other things in relation to this. While the committee made no findings of contempt against Mr Sullivan, it did raise questions regarding the maintenance of the balance between proper accountability, a witness’s obligations to answer questions and necessary confidentiality for some aspects of the conduct of public hearings. And that is obviously in relation to witnesses making claims of confidentiality. In relation to that, the committee did make two recommendations, and I will read them out because I think they are important in relation to this matter:
1. The committee recommends that the Speaker write to the Chief Executive Officers of all ACT government departments and Territory-owned corporations and remind them of the obligations of witnesses before Assembly committees particularly with regard to matters relating to claims of public interest immunity and that Chief Executive Officers ensure that their staff are properly informed of their obligations.
2. The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly adopt a resolution clarifying its position with regard to claims of immunity from answering questions or providing documents made by witnesses, stating that claims of immunity must be made by ministers or the appropriate senior officer of other public agencies and territory owned corporations and that details of the harm that might be caused by providing the information must be included in the claim.
As is noted in the report, there is a process which operates federally in the Senate. And this is something which the committee has called on the administration committee to consider. If we look at this recommendation, it does then place a much greater onus on witnesses to be able to provide evidence in claiming commercial-in-confidence information and provides more clarity around that issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video