Page 4340 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
you have facts, you should prove them through use of evidence. None of that has been presented. I have not been given the opportunity to answer a case, because there is no case. I have not been given the opportunity to rebut facts, because no facts have been presented. I have not been given the opportunity to rebut the evidence, because no evidence has been presented. And if one of those opposite wants to endeavour to do it, I will seek leave to answer the case. The Deputy Chief Minister of the ACT has not made that case here today. There is no case. There should be no censure.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (3.06): I think it was Paul Keating who said of John Hewson, “I’m going to do you, son, and I’m going to do you slowly.” I was reminded of that when I saw the rabbit in the headlights just now. Getting shrill does not actually have any substance to it.
I want to give a bit of perspective to this and quote from a few things which are on the public record—they were tabled in this place by your good self, Mr Speaker. One is a sentence from Mr Smyth’s letter to you seeking that you give precedence to the matter of the establishment of a privileges committee:
My fundamental concern about the way in which this matter has been handled has been the extra-ordinary and undue pressure which has been placed on the PAC in considering the appointment of the new ACT Auditor-General.
One of the extraordinary and undue pressures was the issue of a press release indicating a preference, indicating an outcome. I argue that the presence of Mr Smyth’s press release is exactly the same. You cannot accuse one member of an action and seek to have an investigation into that matter and then go and commit the sin you believe has been perpetrated already.
I would then like to quote, Mr Speaker, the advice you asked of the committee in determining that matter of precedence. You wanted to know whether the matters raised by Mr Smyth had caused or were likely to cause substantial interference in the work of the committee system. The committee’s response to you, Mr Speaker, said:
… the majority of the Committee was of the view that the matter raised by Mr Smyth had caused interference with its work … was unable to determine whether the interference was substantial …
It also went on to say:
…the public announcement of the proposed nominee prior to the Committee considering and reporting on the nomination, had the potential, if regarded as a precedent—
and I argue that the emergence instantly of another media release along similar lines would be the exercising of that precedent—
and repeated, to cause substantial interference with the scrutiny and oversight role parliamentary committees …
The majority of the committee has said to you in its advice that, if this practice is to continue, it is likely to cause substantial interference. That was its advice to you. I am
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video