Page 1776 - Week 05 - Thursday, 10 May 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
For the Assembly to have a role in ascertaining whether all of these requirements have been met, other than by requiring the current statutory declaration, would place a heavy burden on it. It is not clear what further role the Assembly could undertake.
Given that we currently have the most comprehensive arrangements among the states and territories, it speaks to the fact that the committee formed the view that it is not the Assembly’s role to undertake a comprehensive investigation into somebody’s eligibility to look into whether they are an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent, for example, and the various other requirements under the section of the constitution, but, rather, that it is upon the nominator in making that statutory declaration. The committee did not form the view that the Assembly should take further steps. Given that we made those findings only a few months ago, I do not know that there is a sense that we should take a different approach.
In terms of the first part of Mr Coe’s motion around a privilege matter and whether the Assembly has been misled, for me the most instructive comments were those made by Mrs Dunne in her remarks. She said that it subsequently transpired that Ms Gallagher was not eligible to be appointed. I think this is the central point. The High Court has now made a series of interpretations that have changed everybody’s understanding of both the interpretation of section 44 and individual people’s eligibility under that section.
These are matters that need to be addressed at a commonwealth level. I do not think they go to matters that sit before the Assembly. On that basis the Greens will not be supporting Mr Coe’s motion today.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management and Minister for Urban Renewal) (11.54): As we have heard, the Assembly has already considered this matter. In responding today, I want to draw members’ attention to the contribution that Mrs Dunne made on 28 November last year. She said:
… I do not believe that any of the information provided in March 2015 was intentionally inaccurate …
She made those comments again today, and the standing orders go directly to intention. Mrs Dunne’s previous remarks make it clear that even those opposite believe that this crucial element of intent is lacking.
I also note that this matter has been subject to report by the standing committee on admin and procedure. We have heard about that today. I would like to say that this matter has been quite rightly and properly considered by both the federal parliament and the High Court, and they have made their decisions. We should respect those debates and decisions. Let us move on and get on with the business of delivering for this growing city.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (11.55), in reply: To conclude this debate, I think it is important that I point out a couple of the anomalies in what the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video