Page 3096 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, Ms Szuty was meticulous in examining the report. She went through it with what I could only call a fine toothcomb and examined the issues and the matters of concern to her. If she is accused - as she has been quite clearly, by implication at least - of being the stooge of the Liberals because of the way in which these reports have come forward - - -
Mr Lamont: Not so.
MR HUMPHRIES: Not by you perhaps, Mr Lamont, but by others. If that is the implication, I think it is extremely unfortunate. I remind people who are listening to this debate that the comments made here that are critical of Ministers were accepted unanimously in every case when they were first made before the committee - and that includes my comments on unresponsive answers - and ultimately, even when dissenting comments came in, they were opposed only by the three Labor members of the committee. The Independents who sat on that committee had no trouble, no hesitation, in supporting what is an obvious conclusion from the way in which many questions were answered - namely, that there was a lack of accountability to that committee. Madam Speaker, we must not allow that to continue. Our work in this Assembly is, as I said earlier today, of little value if we do not have access to information and to facts. While we have Ministers stonewalling in the Assembly and its committees, that situation will be to the eternal shame of the Assembly. We must turn that culture around, and this report is one small way of starting that process.
MR CORNWELL (9.24): Madam Speaker, I do not want to dwell on the dissenting reports at the back of the Estimates Committee report. I would, however, like to correct some matters. I refer specifically to the meeting convened at 8.30 am on 5 November that Ms Ellis referred to earlier. I do not accept that there was not time for Labor members to be present at that meeting for however short a period. The Social Policy Committee did not begin until 9 o'clock. The Estimates Committee was convened at 8.30 am. Ms Szuty is nodding her head in agreement. That would have given 30 minutes for members to make a contribution.
It is true that the Social Policy Committee did commence its deliberations a little late - 15 minutes at the maximum. I, in fact, made the quorum with Ms Ellis and Mrs Grassby. So, I put it to you that - - -
Mrs Grassby: I said that I would be in at 9 o'clock, not half past eight.
MR CORNWELL: Mrs Grassby has just confirmed that she was there at 9 o'clock. She could have popped her head in the door to the Estimates Committee as well. I would like to correct any impression that there was some problem about members of the Labor Party attending that meeting on 5 November. I did not have any trouble attending it and I do not believe that all of their members would have had difficulty.
I found the process of the estimates quite instructive. I do not believe, however, as has been suggested by some of our Labor colleagues opposite, that it was some sort of whitewash. I do not say that in a political sense, though I have no doubt that some of our Labor friends may see it in that light. I do, however, maintain that the Estimates Committee and the report that flows therefrom simply must
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .