Page 875 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to dismiss. Frankly, I think politicising these sorts of issues is a very bad precedent to set.
I have indicated to anyone who seeks a waiver that their application will be assessed in accordance with the criteria. I will receive advice, as I do, on each application that comes before me—not that there are that many, but there are some, from the particular relevant directorates. That is appropriate. That information is made available to me and then I am able to make a final decision in accordance with the legislation. That is how waivers should be considered; not by way of private members’ motions and whoever happens to get in the ear of the shadow treasurer or who might be a mate of the shadow treasurer. That is certainly not how I will be approaching these particular matters.
Mr Smyth: Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker, on a point of order, there is an imputation—“a mate of the shadow treasurer.” I do not think I had met the gentleman before he sent an email to many members of parliament, and I ask the Treasurer to withdraw the imputation.
MR BARR: Madam Assistant Speaker, I am happy to withdraw. If the shadow treasurer takes offence at that, I stand—
Members interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Order, members! It has been withdrawn. Let us continue.
MR BARR: Thank you. I stand by the point, though, that political patronage and private members’ motions will not influence my decision-making. I will undertake my decision-making in accordance with the Financial Management Act and with the benefit of advice from the various ACT government agencies.
On that basis, the government will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s motion today because I do not wish to give an indication that I will be giving a waiver in relation to this matter until it has been considered. I will not support Mr Smyth’s motion, but I give the undertaking that we will consider this particular application with the same criteria and context as we consider all applications. But voting for this motion today would imply that I will give a favourable decision in relation to this case, and I am not in a position yet to make that determination. I will not support Mr Smyth’s motion this afternoon.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.42): Let me first clarify for the concerned members of the opposition why I stood up on the point of order. It was to seek some clarification of what the standards are in this place. In the last item that we discussed, in your closing remarks you made a series of imputations about what I had decided to step away from or to take a different approach on, as to whether the Auditor-General should be involved or not. Yet on that side of the table, as soon as Mr Barr had some criticism of them, they are on their feet complaining like a pack of glass jaws—
Mr Hanson: Madam Assistant Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video