Page 4006 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The issuing of the statement does not, and did not, infringe the capacity of the PAC or its members to freely exercise their duties and functions. I have not heard anything to suggest otherwise. That is the fundamental failure with this piece of political posturing from those opposite. Are they seriously suggesting that the issuing of a factual media statement amounts to an undue influence such that it will force members of the public accounts committee to act against their own free will?
Are we all such wilting violets in this place that we cannot take the issuing of a media statement against us by another member? That is not even what occurred in this case. We suffer the slings and arrows of throwing insults and jibes at each other across this chamber and through the media on a daily basis. No-one suggests that that in some manner impacts on our ability to act according to our own free will in exercising our decisions in this place.
Yet Mr Smyth wants to make the argument that because the Chief Minister issued a factual media statement about a proposed appointment, subject to confirmation and advice from the public accounts committee, it is in some way an undue influence. It is an absurd proposition. Members in this place should reflect on that. They should reflect on whether or not you can reasonably make out a case for undue influence, the coercion of members to act against their free will, because that is what contempt is about and that case has not been made out, Mr Speaker. For that reason, the government would ask members not to support this motion today.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (10.33): It is unfortunate that the first time we see the text is this morning. It does mean that it is quite a quick turnaround and we do not have the time for the proper consideration that these sorts of matters really should be given. I think it is important that when we do get to matters of this importance, we do take that time to reflect, to be able to look at it in detail, rather than to be, I guess, put on the spot in many ways.
It is also important that we have a process that will look into these matters and consider these matters. There have been some issues—some important issues—raised in Mr Smyth’s motion. In this place privileges committees can be set up to be able to do that reflection, to be able to look, to be able, I guess, to delve deeper to find out what has gone on and whether proper processes have been followed.
I think that both sides have reflected on a letter that was sent this morning. We had the situation where the name of the proposed Auditor-General was released publicly before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts had the opportunity to be able to look at that appointment. PAC did have a veto on that appointment. There was a feeling that this was disrespectful of those committee processes. It is my understanding that there has been some correspondence along these lines.
The Greens believe that we need to look at ensuring that committees in this place are respected, that their processes are respected at all times. They are a very important part of any parliament. In this case what is being put forward is that there were some issues around that name being publicly released while that committee had still to meet and also to deliberate on that appointment. Mr Smyth has obviously included that in his motion this morning.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video