Page 4001 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I wish to advise with regard to point (b) that the majority of the committee was of the view that the process undertaken by the ACT government itself in the lead-up to the appointment of the new Auditor-General being made, ie the public announcement of the proposed nominee prior to the committee considering reporting on the nomination, had the potential, if regarded as a precedent and repeated, to cause substantial interference with the scrutiny and oversight role parliamentary committees have on behalf of the Assembly with regard to the process of statutory appointment.
That is what the committee determined—that there was the substantial interference with the committee and that it may lead to substantial interference in the future as well.
I think the case is quite clear. I have more documents here if people want me to read them. We have already canvassed some of the issues when I resigned. But I think the point is that the committee found that there was interference, and that is something that is not to be tolerated.
I believe the easiest way to go ahead with this is to form the committee that I have suggested. What I am suggesting is that, pursuant to standing order 276, a select committee on privileges be established to examine whether there was improper interference with the free exercise by an Assembly committee of its authority in relation to the announcement by the Chief Minister in a press release of the government’s proposed nominee for the position and approaches made to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts during the course of the committee’s consideration.
These are very simple matters. They should be resolved. The Speaker, upon receiving my letter and getting the information back from the public accounts committee, has given precedence to this matter today. I would simply say that if we do not take a stand today, what you will do is leave the door open for the corruption of the committee process into the future. And that, members, is unacceptable.
It is important that where serious concerns over process are made, particularly over the governance that the government has had in this matter, we do investigate them. Upon becoming Chief Minister, Ms Gallagher did promise a new era of openness and accountability, yet one of her first actions was to move away from the established process for dealing with statutory appointments, placing unnecessary and undue pressure on the public accounts committee in both her written and verbal comments.
Members, as a consequence, I have now moved this morning to establish a select committee to inquire as to whether the Chief Minister has committed a breach of privilege through interfering in the committee process. I commend the motion to you.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (10.14): I thank the manager of government business, the Attorney-General, for allowing me to speak before him. You will note, Mr Speaker, that the letter to you from the committee said that the majority of members said X, Y and Z. I think it is reasonable that the minority view be on the public record. I was the person who put forward that minority view. I wish to reiterate the comments that I made in the meeting and try to bring some semblance of perspective to that particular case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video