Page 3047 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL: Madam Speaker, I said that this Government imagines that everyone else, including its own public servants, cannot be trusted. That is a personal view of mine. I think the word I used is quite reasonable, Madam Speaker. I did not say that this Labor Government believes that everyone else cannot be trusted. I said that they imagine that. I think that is a perfectly reasonable comment. If I had said "believed", most certainly I would have been in error.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Cornwell, you are effectively telling me that you had no intention of imputing improper motives to Ms Follett, and you are withdrawing that?
MR CORNWELL: Indeed; by no means, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: We will let the matter settle, then. Please continue.
MR CORNWELL: One does have to ask why the Government would ban departmental officers from speaking directly with non-government members or their staff. Why would the Government insist that every single constituency inquiry has to go through the relevant Minister's office? Thanks to these absurd directives, I submit, constituency inquiries are delayed; I think public servants probably feel intimidated - - -
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I think the inference Mr Cornwell is clearly drawing is that Ministers intimidate public servants or that public servants feel intimidated by their Ministers. That is an objectionable statement, and I think it should be withdrawn.
MADAM SPEAKER: The consideration comes under standing orders 54, 55 and 56 and around that area of our standing orders. Whilst I can understand Ms Follett's objections, I think the use of the words is not serious enough for me to warrant asking you for a withdrawal, Mr Cornwell; but I would caution you to consider the possible offensive imputation that could come from your words.
MR CORNWELL: I understand, Madam Speaker. May I say that, thanks to these absurd directives, constituency inquiries are delayed. Perhaps the public servants could feel that they are intimidated. I make no stronger comment than that. Non-government members most certainly are frustrated in the performance of their duties to the electorate. That is unequivocal. It is all so unnecessary.
Non-government members are well aware that matters of policy must be referred to the Minister's office and to the Minister. We accept that. In the event that they overstep the mark at any time, we have no doubt that the public servants they are speaking to would soon apprise them of that fact and ask them to speak to the Minister. We want access to departments only on relatively straightforward electoral matters. This is by no means an unusual request. Mr Berry is nodding agreement and saying, "Yes, hear, hear". It is by no means an unusual request. It operated effectively and efficiently in the earlier Assembly. What is preventing it operating now is the attitude of this Government, its desire to control all information and the providers of such information. I submit that this mania is a clear indication of the Government's paranoia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .