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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 11 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

This time the committee system has sunk to a new low. This time the committee has been used to promote a blatant political agenda never seen before. It dropped all pretence of objectivity or a balanced report. Its sole aim was to get the Chief Minister, regardless of the terms of reference. That is why it ignored high-quality evidence presented to it that the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the superannuation problem was to sell ACTEW. That is why it wilfully misrepresented information presented to it, from the Australian Government Actuary, that the ACT Government's estimates of the superannuation liability were on the mark. That is why it deliberately distorted information, again from the Australian Government Actuary, designed to show the impact of changing assumptions about the rate of return. It disingenuously converted an illustration into a projection. Nice try, but false. This is why it deliberately avoided hearing from people, such as our own Auditor-General, whom it suspected may not have reinforced its political bias. Sadly, Mr Speaker, these events have dragged the committee system and this Assembly into disrepute. As if to reinforce the lack of professionalism in dealing with information, the personal behaviour of some members was disgusting.

Mr Speaker, I feel it is necessary to relay the brief history of how the report came to be adopted. Even though the draft report had been selectively leaked, the committee met briefly last Friday, originally at 1.00 pm, but later convened at 1.30 to consider draft No. 2. The next meeting was scheduled for 11.30 am on Saturday. So, in the meantime, I prepared several amendments to the draft to correct the more glaring errors and to ensure a more accurate presentation of the information presented to the committee. On information provided by the committee, I said I would have my amendments ready by the following Monday morning. I was invited by the chair of the committee to bring forward my proposed amendments on the Saturday morning so that they might be considered and maybe incorporated, if agreed to, in the report. As it turned out, the meeting on Saturday morning was on, but when I arrived at 11.30 I was presented with draft No. 4. The chairman expected me to be familiar with it even though I had just seen it for the first time. When I said that I still wanted my amendments to draft No. 2 to be considered, I was subjected to an incredible stream of abuse. The committee descended into behaviour that can only be described as uncivilised and degrading, yet the chairman showed no leadership.

Following an adjournment, I presented the disk of my amendments so that the secretary could match my comments and amendments with the appropriate paragraphs in draft No. 4. I thank the secretary for his assistance. When we reconvened, the committee refused to consider my amendments paragraph by paragraph and threatened, under standing orders, not to allow me to follow standing order 248. The chairman then said he would go ahead and have the report printed anyway without considering my comments and amendments, but would simply insert them as a dissenting report at the back. The chairman obviously contravened standing orders but the committee supported his approach, Mr Speaker. My rights as a member were not protected by the chairman or other members of the committee. Reluctantly, and under unreasonable pressure, I allowed my amendments to be incorporated, provided I was given the opportunity to reconfigure them as a dissenting report. The behaviour of the committee was most intimidating and I do not believe that I should have been threatened in such menacing terms for seeking to insist on a fair hearing and, in the Australian vernacular, Mr Speaker, a fair go.

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