Page 3055 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, we cannot tolerate that as an institution which has a vested interest in protecting the interests of our community. It is our role in this place to keep Ministers and governments accountable and responsible. We need to be able to deal with broad political issues on the floor of this Assembly by attacking government policies; that is one role we play in this Assembly. But there is another more important role - perhaps not more important, but certainly as important - and that is to protect the interests of our constituents, to go out there in the marketplace, as it were, find out what is concerning people, and take their interests back to the Assembly and the Government and address those problems. We can do that more effectively by getting regular access to those within the bureaucracy who deal with those problems on a day-to-day basis.
Mr Cornwell drew attention to the very obvious fact that, under the guidelines issued and practised by this Government at the present time, members of the Opposition actually have less access than ordinary people in the street.
Mrs Carnell: Or none.
MR HUMPHRIES: In fact, in some cases, as Mrs Carnell interjects, we effectively have none. That is just unacceptable. It lowers this Assembly's position in the eyes of the community because it makes us appear as being unable to help people with their day-to-day problems. If we cannot help them with their day-to-day problems, we do not deserve to be here. I think we should rectify that situation. We should find ourselves of more relevance by being given the access we need to the real decision making processes of this Government.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.11): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Opposition are wont to bleat excessively about the so-called closed shop mentality of this Government putting up the shutters. Mr Humphries, in his passionate peroration, referred to the need for his colleagues, as representatives of the people, to have access to the real decision makers. They have that in the Estimates Committee. It is the best opportunity opposition members get to cross-examine not only Ministers but also their advisers.
I had the extraordinary experience, in my time before the Estimates Committee, of being dealt with not by opposition spokespersons but by other opposition members, because half the Opposition were not around. On the occasion of the one opportunity opposition members had to get senior officials in front of them to answer questions at length, to cross-examine officials, they were scattered to the four corners of the compass. This very passionate annoyance they have at our closed shop policies, our closed door and our shutters down, really does not stick with the fact that when they had the big opportunity they were not around. They were, however, as they are keen to point out, around to vote on the decisions: "We were not here to hear the evidence, but we were sure as heck here to vote on the decisions condemning the Government". Anything they say about accessibility or the closed nature of government has to be taken with a very substantial grain of salt.
This is an issue I can deal with fairly briefly. As the Chief Minister indicated, we have been here and done that in the last sittings of this Assembly. We had exactly the same debate. It does rather show the paucity of issues that the Liberals have to bring before the community. I thought I would refer opposition members, who seem to have a rather confused idea of the role of a private member, to a fine
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .