Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4440 ..

MS FOLLETT (11.43): Mr Speaker, I would like to add briefly to this debate and support Ms McRae's motion. I will speak briefly, first, as the chair of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and say that, as chair, I have no difficulty with the committee undertaking an evaluation of the proposal that Ms McRae has put forward. Members may be aware that there is something of a precedent for this kind of action being taken by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is a fact that, since the Assembly has passed the Statutory Appointments Act, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has been quite adamant in its requirement that the Government's explanatory memorandums set out which committee it was that was consulted on those appointments. That is now stated in the Government's explanatory memorandums, at the request of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Where that statement is not made, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has gone back to the Government and requested that it remedy that situation.

So, in terms of that kind of consultation, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has already required that some action should be taken by the Government in informing the committee - and therefore the Assembly, more generally - as to who was consulted. I think that is an appropriate course of events, Mr Speaker. So, as the chair, I have no difficulty with extending our scrutiny in the way which Ms McRae has suggested. It may be, of course, that the committee, upon considering these matters, will decide not to support the proposal. It may well be that that is the outcome. But I have no difficulty with our examining the question.

Mr Speaker, if I set aside that hat and take on my member of the Assembly hat, I can advise the Assembly that during the period when Labor was in government the information that Ms McRae has requested there was, indeed, pretty much set out on the front of every Cabinet submission, in the form cover of every Cabinet submission. So, as a government, we certainly did consider those issues and we did require that there be some evidence of consultation; some evidence of the results of that consultation, as to whether the matter was agreed or disagreed; and, if so, who was on each side. We also required that, where there was a social justice impact, that also be the subject of consultation and a statement be made on each Cabinet submission to that effect. So, whilst we did that within the confines of Cabinet, it was certainly information which we had a great interest in.

The step which Ms McRae is now seeking to take would expand that information gathering exercise and make it available to the whole of the Assembly. That is a step which I acknowledge we did not take in government; but I do think it is an appropriate step to take if we have a genuine interest in open and consultative government and in informing the Assembly fully of the impact of all proposals that come forward from the Executive. Mr Speaker, from a policy point of view, I think that Ms McRae is taking an entirely reasonable second step in furthering open and consultative government. So, I will be supporting the motion, and I urge other members to do so as well.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.47): Mr Speaker, may I advise members about a piece of information which has just come to my attention? I am told that the Senate has just passed the legislation enabling the partial sale of Telstra, which members might have different views about but which will certainly be very good news for the Australian environment, if nothing else.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .