Page 3452 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011

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

---

because it’s exempt.” They have not applied the public interest test. This shows, first and foremost, a lack of understanding about how this legislation works and, secondly, a lack of will to apply it properly.

Ms Hunter said she has brought forward this motion in this way to consolidate and make it perfectly clear what the Assembly’s intention is about openness and accountability, about integrity mechanisms and integrity agencies, in the ACT Legislative Assembly. I do not think that anyone can particularly quibble with any of this. But the test is not how schmick your legislation is, how often you pass motions in this place, how often you stand up and say, “No government that I lead will ever hide behind cabinet-in-confidence or commercial-in-confidence.” It is not about what you say or what you legislate; it is about how you act. And this government does not have a very good record when it comes to how it acts.

There has been a litany today regarding the way they have allowed the abuse of staff to go on. We have seen it in Bimberi, we have seen it with Mr Buchanan, we have seen it in TAMS, we have seen it in Health, we have seen it in ACTPLA. The list goes on and on. And when will it stop? It will stop when there is a change of culture at the top. The Chief Minister says, “It’s all going to be wonderful and we’re going to do all of these things,” and as a demonstration of how keen she is, she wants to bring forward reporting dates to show how keen she is. The people of the ACT will know exactly how keen Katy Gallagher is on openness and accountability when she starts to show some.

Motion (by Ms Bresnan) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Members interjecting—

MR SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put. As I indicated before when I took advice earlier, I am advised that, as each of the parties or groupings has spoken, this has been the accepted practice in this house when this question has been put under this standing order. So the question is that the question be now put.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

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