Page 9 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In relation to this issue, we will answer questions, but we expect that other members—particularly members who make unfounded allegations, particularly members who throw mud and seek to hold certain members in this place to a particular standard—will be open and transparent. We expect that they will make statements to the Assembly saying that there have never been any issues in their office and that they will be happy with an audit of all of their offices, whether they be working for the Labor Party, volunteering for the Labor Party or candidates for the Labor Party. We look forward to that kind of treatment across the board, and we will be happy to answer the Assembly’s questions.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (10.28): It is important that today we are very clear about the matter that is being debated and the extent of the issue that has been revealed in the Canberra Times. This is no trivial matter and certainly goes far beyond an administrative matter about paperwork being submitted.
Certainly if the issue was just about a few forms that had not been submitted on time, we would not be discussing this matter today. The failure to submit time sheets is not the real issue. Whilst it is certainly a part of it—a very important part of it, and it does show a good deal of incompetence by the opposition leader in managing his staff—the real issue is whether Mr Seselja has authorised his staff to receive a payment that they are not entitled to.
In effect, the allegation that the Greens are very concerned to address is whether or not Mr Seselja has engaged in fraudulent or other wrongful conduct and allowed his staff to be paid for work they did not do. This is what it is about. Were those time sheets correct? Do those time sheets correctly account for work that has been done—
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clocks. Thank you, Mr Smyth.
Mr Smyth: There is an imputation in what Ms Hunter has just said. It is not covered by the terms of the motion tabled by Mr Hargreaves. I ask for your ruling as to whether she is in order and whether she should withdraw those comments.
MR SPEAKER: This, of course, will be all the more challenging, as I found it very difficult to hear Ms Hunter. On the point of order, Mr Smyth, I think Ms Hunter’s comments remain in order. I think the motion is substantively about the issues raised, and I believe Ms Hunter framed it as a question in the context of the matters that are being debated. If a straight allegation was made, I would be more concerned, but in the context of the debate and the breadth of the motion there is no point of order.
Mr Smyth: Just going to your words there, Mr Speaker, could you point to where the motion talks about fraudulence?
MR SPEAKER: I obviously cannot, Mr Smyth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video