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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (28 April) . . Page.. 49 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

I will table that, if I may, because I think it is an issue that will be of interest to members.

Leave granted.

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, if we dissolve the existing arrangements or if we do not persist with the existing arrangements for a Public Accounts Committee, we will be the only parliament in Australia without one. I notice that Mr Osborne, in his motions to establish committees, tacked on the role of a Public Accounts Committee and a Scrutiny of Bills Committee. (Extension of time granted) It seems that this was a last-minute move to try to persuade people as to the arrangements which have been proposed by the Government. Tacking these committees onto those committees which were proposed by the Executive makes our case for a Public Accounts Committee stronger. It shows that it is an add-on and that there is not a proper understanding of the role of a Public Accounts Committee. The Government would just as soon see the end of the Public Accounts Committee, as would the public servants because they do not want people sniffing around in their affairs.

I am surprised that Independents in this place would accept a proposition that dumps such a bipartisan committee. I propose a Standing Committee on Public Accounts in its traditional form, for very good reason. The Public Accounts Committee has played a positive role in the development of our body politic in the ACT and the development of the ACT Public Service and should be allowed to do so independently in future rather than being attached to a policy committee. The nature of the Public Accounts Committee will be undermined. So too will the policy directions of the committee to which it is attached be upset.

My amendments also seek to establish a Scrutiny of Bills Committee, for all of the right reasons. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has been described by some as a machinery committee that merely stamps the expert advice provided to the Assembly. If you strike out the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, you will put us out of step with other parliaments in Australia. You will also ensure that there is not sufficient scrutiny of legislation and subordinate legislation in the ACT. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee - another bipartisan committee not involved in policy issues - has uncovered a number of issues embarrassing for the Government.

Why would the Government want to get rid of it? For good reason. They are sometimes embarrassed about it. Let us not forget the health fees fiasco. With retrospective subordinate legislation, the Government attempted to set health fees. There was a long struggle about how that matter should be remedied. In the end legislation was passed, as it should have been in the first place. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee uncovered that. That is their role in life. The committee is an extremely important part of looking at legislation and subordinate legislation in this Assembly.

It also looks at infringements of civil liberties and those sorts of things. It would be a matter of some importance to me if the Scrutiny of Bills Committee were put into a committee chaired by Mr Osborne, who has an avowed position of impacting on the civil liberties of Canberrans with move-on powers. How could the committee dealing

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