Page 352 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government ordering the audit is not willing to subject themselves to the same scrutiny as they insist upon their political opponents. Such a precedent would create significant injustices in future governments and all arms of the government.
Lastly, I remind the Assembly that, when accusations of fraud have been made using parliamentary privilege, the onus is on the accusers to prove clearly their case and to do so beyond reasonable doubt. Those accusations are not true, and when they have failed to be proven the accusers will have to justify why they have made such allegations without evidence and under the cover of parliamentary privilege. I repeat: this audit should be a forum for testing the allegations that I believe to be completely baseless and should not be used as a political fishing expedition. I table the following paper:
Leader of the Opposition—Staffing matters—Order to provide written statement—Statement from Mr Seselja, MLA, Leader of the opposition, dated 16 February 2012.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Territory and Municipal Services), by leave: Well, well, well, how embarrassing. How embarrassing that the Assembly has come to this, where we have the Leader of the Opposition having to explain such administration slip-ups in his own office—the only thing that he is required to manage in this building. Very clearly, we now have a series of vague excuses. We all have personal and family issues to deal with and our workplace conditions make plenty of provision for bereavement and family leave for our staff. However, as in all workplaces, there are systems which ensure that these entitlements are not abused and any examination of the appropriate personnel records should record the type and nature of leave taken by employees. If these exist then, of course, all is in order.
We will need to go through the Leader of the Opposition’s statement closely. We were not provided with it prior to his rising to his feet. But we do have a rather new element to the defence being put forward by the Liberal Party and that is essentially that a LA(MS) staffer paid in this place, for the first time, as I understand it, in the history of self-government, predominantly does not work in this building. Mr Seselja has accepted that today. This is the first time in three years that I am aware of a community engagement model working within the Liberal Party within this building. It is the only time. Indeed, I think the discussion around the new community engagement model of staffing has actually only emerged in the last two days. What the Assembly is being asked to accept here—
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MS GALLAGHER: No, what the Assembly is being asked to accept here is that there is a staff member who predominantly does not work in this place doing a range of activities in the community, roving activities within the community, being paid for by the taxpayer. We will have a close look at this, Mr Seselja. Really, nothing that Mr Seselja has said today convinces me that there is not an issue that needs to be looked at closely by a responsible audit process that the Assembly has agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video