Page 2492 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As has also been pointed out, no ministers today have addressed the substance of the motion before us. This is about the accountability of the executive to the parliament. Is Mr Barr saying through his actions that the government is above the parliament? I refer the Assembly to the Latimer House principles we have adopted, most importantly 2(g)(i), which states that parliamentary procedures should provide adequate mechanisms to enforce the accountability of the executive to the parliament. That is why we have committees and that is why we have estimates.
Under standing order 277(l)(i) a witness before a committee could refuse to answer a question if they had reasonable excuse. Therefore, Mr Barr could have appeared before the committee and answered the questions he could and not answered those questions for which he had a reasonable excuse not to answer. So he could have appeared and then not answered those questions he thought were inappropriate.
I would also just like to point out that admonishment is a formal proceeding of the Assembly and has been used on a number of occasions in the past. I would just like to draw members’ attention to the fact that the very first such motion in the Assembly was, in fact, an admonishment. The Greens believe the most appropriate response in considering the actions of Mr Barr is admonishment. “Admonishment” is defined as being “to warn or to caution”. I therefore commend Ms Le Couteur’s amended motion to the Assembly.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (4.22): It is a shame that I rise to speak today on this issue. It would have been much easier had the minister done his job as per the standing orders, as per the people of Canberra elected him to do, and fulfilled his Assembly duties by turning up to the committee as requested.
It is a very simple process. Our previous speakers have outlined just how simple and straightforward that process is. Yet this minister, through complete arrogance, has said, “No, I am above that committee; I am above those five members; I am above those five members that were delegated by this Assembly to carry out that task.” This minister has said, “No, I am above them.” He has in effect said, “I am above the Assembly”—in effect, that he is above the people of Canberra; he is not answerable to the people of Canberra. That is what his actions describe. His actions describe that he does not need to give the people of Canberra an answer when their elected representatives seek one; he just does not need to do it.
What I found interesting about the debate earlier was when the health minister came up and in effect strengthened our case when she said, “I did not agree with it either but I turned up. I did not agree with it but I turned up.” Here you have it. You have Mr Barr and Ms Gallagher in the same situation where they both disagree with being called up, yet only one of them actually does as the standing orders stipulate. You have Mr Barr doing one thing and you have Ms Gallagher doing another.
Mr Stanhope: What is the standing order?
MR COE: On the broader issue of standing orders, as Mr Stanhope has reminded me, I find it very interesting that the Labor Party are very good at selectively using the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .