Page 3046 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL: The result was the gradual adoption of a siege mentality, Mr Connolly, by your Government. Rumours began to circulate that members were getting the run-around from departments, that there was a reluctance by public servants to provide information.
There were even allegations that public servants were obliged to report all requests for assistance to the relevant Minister's office, and there were several celebrated cases - which gave credence to these allegations, I might add - where the Minister's office phoned a member only minutes after that member had been in touch with the department. Is that not remarkable? The paranoia, as we all know, culminated shortly before the September budget in the infamous police raid on the Canberra Times. That incident might have represented the high-water mark to date in this Government's obsessive fear of unauthorised information getting into non-government hands. The tide, however, still remains too high for most non-government members, who are still doggedly treading water on this matter.
Unfortunately, strongly influenced by its own factional infighting, this Labor Government imagines that everyone else, including its own public servants, cannot be trusted. The public servants cannot be trusted, in this Labor Government's view. Why else would it ban departmental officers from speaking directly with non-government members and their staff?
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Mr Cornwell has clearly made an imputation either that public servants cannot be trusted or that the Government believes that they cannot be trusted. Either way, I think that is an offensive imputation, and I would ask that that be withdrawn.
Mr Humphries: Under which standing order?
MADAM SPEAKER: Unparliamentary language, Mr Humphries.
Mr Humphries: Madam Speaker, can I address you on that point of order?
MADAM SPEAKER: Let me take the first point of order and get it clear. It is not unparliamentary language. Ms Follett has said that there has been an imputation made - - -
Mr Humphries: Against a member of this Assembly or somebody else, not against a public servant.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is quite right, Mr Humphries - the inference being that Ms Follett does not trust the public servants, I believe. That is what the imputation could be taken to mean. That is what I understand the point of order to be about, Mr Humphries.
Mr De Domenico: We are finicky, aren't we?
MADAM SPEAKER: We have a point of order; let us just deal with it. We are not supposed to make unfair imputations against members of the Assembly, and that is what the point of order is about. Mr Cornwell, you may choose to reword your statement or withdraw the statement, as you choose.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .