Page 5514 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The third matter for the committee to consider was the question of whether the approach made to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by the Chief Minister constituted a contempt. I think it is worth noting that in the report there is a time line provided for the consideration of the appointment of Auditor-General. I will not read that out, but it is worth noting and worth looking at in terms of the back and forth in the committee on this particular decision.
After analysing the evidence, it is the committee’s opinion that the visit by the Chief Minister to the chair of the committee was not of the nature of trying to influence the consideration of the appointment of the new Auditor-General. Rather, it was an attempt to address some of the concerns that had been raised in the chair’s letter the previous day. Therefore, finding 3 states in full:
Having regard to all the evidence before it, the committee considers that the approach to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by the Chief Minister was not a contempt.
I now actually want to go to the dissenting comments from Mr Seselja. This issue of the approach from the Chief Minister to the chair of public accounts is the primary issue Mr Seselja has raised in his dissenting comments in terms of not holding public hearings in relation to Ms Le Couteur’s evidence and her submission.
As I have noted, all involved parties were given the opportunity to make submissions and all those submissions have been made public. Nothing has been hidden. I completely trust Ms Le Couteur’s submission. I believe that she has told the committee exactly what she wanted the committee to know. As I have already noted, on the basis of that information the Chief Minister’s approach did not reach the threshold for contempt.
Mr Seselja has also raised that both Mr Smyth and Mr Hargreaves said they would be happy to appear before the committee on the issue that I have just raised. On the main issue that Mr Seselja has raised on the approach to Ms Le Couteur, both the other members of PAC have stated that they could not really comment on the approach as they were not there and could only make assumptions from what Ms Le Couteur has said had happened.
On the overall tenet of Mr Seselja’s comments, I have now been chair of two privileges committees and I am chair of a standing committee. No member of any party, until now, has raised issue with the way I have conducted committee business or hearings. No member has raised issue with my objectivity or integrity. I took this committee referral extremely seriously and believe a privileges matter is one of the most serious matters that a committee will have to deal with. We are dealing with people’s reputations and livelihoods. In this instance, we are not just dealing with members of the Assembly. We are dealing with claims against a public official.
Mr Seselja had no issue with my interpreting when he elected me as chair of the committee. He had no issue when I did not agree to a matter of privilege being raised against Mr Smyth. He had no issue with my integrity when I mentioned that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video