Page 1790 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Read further into the CIT Act and you see that in section 16 the CIT does have the power to engage consultants. That is outlined in its legislation. Clearly, division 2.2 of the act outlines the governance arrangements and the roles and responsibilities of the CIT board. So the minister is entirely correct in the legal process, and in the statements that he has made to this place, which stand in marked contrast to what we have heard from the other side of the chamber in this debate this morning.

When it comes to the most serious motion that can be moved, a motion of no confidence in a minister, it is important that there are facts on the table. The facts are very clear in this case, Madam Speaker. There is no evidence to support a motion of no confidence in the minister. The minister retains the full confidence of me and his colleagues. He is committed to this portfolio. He is committed to working with all of the education and training providers to see that Canberrans get access to the best quality skills and vocational education and training.

What he has said, and I endorse it, is that there are questions to be asked about this process. He is asking those questions. This Assembly has now determined the process for those questions to be answered, and within a short period of time, so to come in here this morning with no new information, nothing new to say, other than more and more insults to hurl at the minister, says everything about what this is about: politics, politics, politics, and going after the minister personally. Then the contribution from Mr Milligan, suggesting that the minister should break the law, really topped off a top-notch effort from you mob this morning.

Do better. Do better. Politics can be better than this, and it should be. Focus on the substance of the issues and look at what the minister has done, which is the right thing to do. I acknowledge that he has done that, that he has faced the barrage of political insults from you mob and done the right thing. And that, Madam Speaker, is why we will not be supporting this political stunt this morning.

MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (10.36): Certainly, this is a very serious matter and I think that many of the questions that have been raised about these contracts, on the face of them and in light of the information we heard on the radio this morning, are very concerning. There are serious questions to be asked about this CIT contract arrangement and we need to get to the bottom of why this contract was given, what is being delivered from it and how the decisions were taken.

As the presenter on ABC Radio said this morning, the $4.99 et cetera million is a very interesting number and in itself poses serious questions. We Greens agree that, from what we have seen, there are issues of concern with these CIT contracts. That is why, yesterday, we supported this going to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has the skills, the forensic capability and the powers under legislation to get the information that is needed to provide this place and members of the community with a clear understanding of the sorts of questions we are all wondering about.

That is why we supported that yesterday afternoon, because what we do not want to do is to have this matter resort to innuendo and half-baked analysis. We do want to get the proper answers, at the end of the day, because there is something worth

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video