Page 4336 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to highlight the fact that the Chief Minister is in fact to appear before a privileges committee on a very serious charge.
What did I say in the debate? I will go through some of the lines:
That is contemptuous of the process and it is contemptuous of the committee …
If you are in contempt of the committee, that is improper conduct. We asked the Chief Minister did she approach the chair. The Chief Minister in the first debate initially denied it. She and Mr Seselja had a little head to head over here, with the Chief Minister saying: “No, I did not. I did not. I did not do it. I did not approach him.” But when we asked her a question, she confirmed that she had. That might be improper conduct.
I said it had serious ramifications. Yes, it might be improper conduct. I said it had raised the questions that you asked, Mr Speaker. The response from the committee said that yes, it had raised the question of substantial interference with the committee. Substantial interference can only be improper conduct. And we went on to say that it had caused or was likely to cause substantial interference with the work of the Assembly committee system. Interference with the committee system of any kind, let alone substantial interference, is improper conduct. I went on to say:
So the majority of the committee believed we had been interfered with in the processes—
by the actions of the Chief Minister. That is improper conduct. If there is interference, it must be improper conduct. I went on to say:
But the important thing here is that the committee found there was influence and it had caused us trouble with our process.
That is improper interference. That is improper conduct. I then went on to say:
Because remember, members, if we set a precedent today, that precedent is incredibly hard to undo.
That would be a very poor outcome. I then went on to say, as the father of the motion, what I thought the committee would do. I had hoped the committee would come up with a better process. I said:
What I am asking you to do today is to send this matter to a committee for a committee to determine and make recommendations back to this place so that we get this right for the future, so that this does not happen again, so that committees are not interfered with by the executive and, indeed, so that committees are not interfered with by the Chief Minister, who should set the example.
That sort of interference is improper conduct. I referred to the “attempt to subvert the process of the committee to appoint the new Auditor-General on which the committee has now found there was interference”. That sort of interference, if it is found to be true, is improper conduct.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video