Page 2208 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: I have visited a couple of other schools just recently without needing to let Mr Wood know, although I did let his office know on one occasion. That is quite appropriate. That contrasts with Mr Humphries when he was Minister. Although there was never any restriction on visits, he put out a directive that we should let his office know. In Mr Wood's case we do not even have to let his office know, although I try to remember to do it as a matter of politeness.
A question was raised with Mr Wood in debate this morning on the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning report. It concerned a consultancy report on Sutton Park, about which there is going to be some angst over a decision because citizens are involved. That consultancy report should be made available to the public - we should know when this project is to go ahead - but that is yet to be done. I hope that Mr Wood will do that very shortly.
I would like to put another good example on the record. A couple of weeks ago I phoned the Woden Valley Hospital to ask about sterilisation. I had been told that women being sterilised required the permission of their spouse, but that men did not. That proved to be incorrect. I thought it appropriate to ask for the policy. I was not given the policy, but I found out some days later that in fact Mr Berry's office had been approached and told about my inquiry.
Mr Berry: By your office.
MR MOORE: No, you were approached by my office later. The Minister then took action to change the policy - which was a good result - so that a partner's permission, although it should be encouraged, is not an absolute necessity for sterilisation.
Mr Berry: Did you want to do a stunt or fix it?
MR MOORE: Mr Berry asks me whether I wanted to do a stunt, and then have it fixed. I thought it was appropriate, Mr Berry, that I be in a position to decide whether I wanted to raise the issue publicly or not publicly. On many occasions I approach you privately to see whether I can have something changed, and on occasions there is a response to that effect. On other occasions I think it is in the public interest to ensure that a broader debate takes place. It is my prerogative to make that decision as a member of this parliament. If I am approaching an officer of your department to ask simply for a policy, then I should be provided with something. It is not a very difficult thing at all.
This "shutters down" Government was aptly illustrated by the response of the Chief Minister to Mr Humphries's question, "Were all public servants given a directive about providing information to non-executive members of the Legislative Assembly?". Ms Follett's response was no - working very much on the "all", instead of adopting a fairly relaxed and open approach which may have come up with the answer, "No, all public servants were not; but in fact I do not know whether there was a directive to this effect, and therefore I shall take the question on notice". That would have been a much more reasonable way to go about it and would have reflected the sort of openness that we have seen from the Chief Minister on many other occasions. I cannot help wondering what it is that is bringing about this closing down attitude at this time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .