Page 852 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In reflecting upon what was the appropriate response, we have unfortunately reflected on the fact that this is not the only report that the government was meant to do but which has not been done on time or has not been done at all. One of the things I was reminded of was a list that Mr Barr, in his previous incarnation as planning minister, should have provided about sustainable building materials.
I very much regret that it had to come to this. The legislation is abundantly clear. It would have been polite for the government, if there was some reason to not be able to meet the timetable, to communicate this to PAC, which has certainly been communicating as much as we could to the government that we actually need this to do our job. We have been tasked by the Assembly to do an inquiry, as Mr Hargreaves said. We are trying to do this to the best of our abilities, and we require the government to also do its job to the best of its abilities.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.34): I would like to address some of the arguments made by the minister in his defence. He is claiming effectively a twofold defence. One is that the actuary took personal leave of about three weeks, I think he said, and the other is that there were some delays over the Christmas holiday period. I make two points in response to that. Firstly, the three-month time frame for the review was virtually up by the time of the Christmas holiday period. They should have basically finished the review by then. So that argument does not stack up.
Secondly, the three weeks of personal leave, of course, does not explain why this is now three months late. So the minister is not out by a few days on complying with the law. He is not out by a few weeks on complying with the law. He is out by a few months on complying with the law. So his arguments do not in any way stack up. They show a contemptuous attitude towards the law, a contemptuous attitude towards the Assembly and a contemptuous attitude towards the legal processes that have been put in place by the government.
Mr Smyth pointed out that this provision was actually supported by the Labor Party when it had a majority in the last Assembly. Regardless of whether that was the case, they would have to comply with the law. Whether they like the law or they do not, they have to comply with it. But in this case they actually supported it and thought it was reasonable that there should be a time frame of three months for a review to be completed and tabled in the Assembly, and this minister has deliberately ignored it.
If he had been out by a few days, and with those circumstances that he has outlined, he might be able to make the case that he tried his best and that he made his best endeavours to comply with the law. But he did not. Clearly he has deliberately failed to comply with the law here. He has made no genuine effort to comply with the three-month time frame. That does call into question his abilities as a minister if he thinks the law is so flexible that he can take double the time that the law actually requires.
In relation to the Greens’ amendment, what we are seeing now is that the Greens have a new standard for censures of members of the Labor Party. Breaches of the law are okay, but not too many. I think Ms Burch is the only minister who has been censured
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video