Page 4003 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of unhappiness, if you like, from Ms Le Couteur. Instantly there was an offer to address the committee.
It is unprecedented in the history of this place that the Chief Minister of this territory would make an offer to a committee to appear before them in Canberra with her CEO and discuss the issues of how this appointment came about, how it was to be recommended to the PAC. Instead of saying to the Chief Minister, “Thank you very much for the additional information,” what we see is the introduction of a proposed privileges committee.
There was no interference. Therefore, there was no substantial interference by definition. The question also before us, Mr Speaker, is whether there is likely to be into the future. Can I say on that issue that Ms Le Couteur’s treatment of those overtures was a salutary lesson to us all? Will it happen into the future? No.
I would hope that chairs of committees into the future would disport themselves exactly the same as Ms Le Couteur did with the authority of her office. She will then come back and share her discomfort. Nonetheless, the issue itself was dealt with and I would expect every person appointed as a chair in this place or to a committee of this place to behave exactly the same. I have been a chair in this place. I know what the heaviness of that responsibility is. Again, I think Ms Le Couteur’s behaviour in this instance is a good lesson to us all.
Does it need anything done about it going forward? No, it does not. It is quite clear what should have been the case. She was quite right. She said that it is inappropriate to discuss the matters. Bang! Game over, in my view. So that will not happen. There will be no interference with committees by someone approaching a committee going forward, unless there is a chair that does not know how to behave.
Was there likely to be interference going forward by the production of one media release? There was one media release. In fact, if you drill down into Mr Smyth’s argument, it is about the headline of that media release. That headline sort of gave the impression that there was a done deal when, indeed, later on in the press release it indicated that the matter had to go before the public accounts committee. It would not be the first time that somebody has had a headline about themselves appear because of a headline printed or published in a media release which was actually not on, not right, not correct. It would not be the first time. But in the substance of the media release, it is actually factual.
Mr Speaker, is it likely to go forward? Is this likely to be a dramatic assault on the democratic process in this territory? I do not think so. What, in fact, is this, Mr Speaker? Mr Smyth did not like the process and he did not like the outcome. The fact is that Mr Smyth is not a minister in this territory. In fact, he is the only person who was a minister in this territory and who has been booted out by the community. That is a salutary comment. He was not happy with the selection process because he was not happy with the selection criteria. My advice on that is that if you are unhappy about that, get into government and change it. But that will not happen in the short term either, will it?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video