Page 3999 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
These matters are not raised lightly. The history of the Assembly shows that there are not too many privileges committees that have been established over time. But, when they are, they should be taken seriously, and they should be about serious matters. This is a serious matter.
What we saw was the nominee for the position of Auditor-General put in the public realm before the committee had the time to do its work, and to do its work properly, without undue pressure. What we had was a dramatic departure from the norm in this place for the last 22 years. To the best of my knowledge and searches, I cannot find another example of where the nominee has been put into the public realm—indeed, not just put into the public realm but heralded as the new Auditor-General for the ACT. And there is a media release from the Chief Minister on 31 May entitled “New Auditor-General for the ACT”.
That is contemptuous of the process and it is contemptuous of the committee, where the Chief Minister goes out and names the nominee as though it were a done deal. And it is not a done deal, simply because this is the only appointment that has a process attached to it where the committee has a veto over that appointment. And it needs to be taken seriously, and it needs to be treated with respect. This is the only time that this has happened.
That was then followed up by approaches to the chair. Indeed, when we had a debate in this place recently over my resignation as the deputy chair of the public accounts committee because of this matter, the Chief Minister initially denied that she had spoken to the chair, and we had to ask her about it in question time, where she confirmed that she had. This is not how the process works. This is not how the process should work. The committee should be allowed to do its business without pressure.
Because of this pressure, because of the approaches and because of the press release, we then had the extraordinary and, I believe, unprecedented combinations of action taken by the public accounts committee in regard to a statutory appointment, which was to hold in-camera hearings with the Chief Minister and the head of the public service, who was also in charge of the selection committee. We were forced to ask for an extension of time so that we could consider this matter carefully, and consider it we did.
But it goes to the heart of what we were doing that forced me to write to you, in all good conscience, Mr Speaker. This matter, I think, has serious ramifications for all committees down the track. Indeed, Mr Speaker, you asked us two questions. For members that do not know the process, it is simply that when a member wants to raise a matter of privilege, they write to the Speaker. If it is a matter concerning an activity that occurred in committee, the courtesy is given to the committee so that the committee can make a determination and inform the Speaker of their view.
In this case, Mr Speaker, you wrote to the committee and you asked two questions: (a) with respect to the manner in which the appointment was raised, had it caused substantial interference with the committee’s work while considering the proposed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video