Page 5894 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We need to do more work on the operation of our integrity agencies and oversight institutions. We need to be ever vigilant about the powers this Assembly gives to the executive and the way that power is exercised. We should require the highest standards of accountability for executive action. This means subjecting the action to independent review. It means properly resourcing our integrity agencies. It does not mean allowing people who are not even elected by the people that decisions affect to overrule those who are elected to make those decisions.
The final statement of Mrs Dunne’s that I would like to address is:
We have struggled with motions such as this one because they are too limited in scope, too isolated in consideration and too lacking in detail. They propose solutions when the problems have not been isolated or even properly defined.
If the Canberra Liberals have additional concerns, I would welcome them to move an amendment to that effect and we can debate the addition of particular problems. The motion identifies the three major issues that need to be addressed. I am not quite sure how it could possibly be argued that these issues are not properly defined. I am also not quite sure how a comprehensive review could be too limited in scope or too isolated in consideration.
Mrs Dunne also referred to the terms of the conflict of interest provisions in the self-government act and the criticism by the ethics adviser. The ACT Greens agree that it would be desirable to clarify this provision, but surely this issue would be covered in the comprehensive review proposed. The fact that it is not drawn out as a major issue is irrelevant. The most pressing issues for the Assembly are articulated in Ms Porter’s motion, and the fact that there will, of course, be ancillary issues that the review should consider does not really have any bearing on the overall merit of the motion. If the Canberra Liberals want to highlight the issue of the conflict of interest and the Governor-General’s ability to dissolve the parliament they could move an amendment to that effect.
A review of the act is the first step. Let us be realistic: the commonwealth is not going to listen to an Assembly committee report. We need them to run their own process, and it is vital that the ACT parliament agitates for this. We cannot make it happen by ourselves, but we have an obligation to do what we can to get the commonwealth to respond to the concerns.
We do not need a consultation forum. We know the views of the people of the ACT are that we should be the ones who decide the laws of the territory. The Canberra Liberals might not like it, but we are a progressive jurisdiction, and it is simply inappropriate that people who have no connection whatsoever with the territory can override the views of the majority of the territory’s elected representatives.
The fact that the commonwealth parliament does not really seem to be at all interested in the ACT most of the time, that they do not appear to want a review and have not done anything to ensure the best outcomes for the territory is a good argument in and of itself as to why we should not be happy to subject ourselves to their arbitrary interference in our rights as a parliament and as a body politic.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video