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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 2758 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

When things get a bit hot, they let them answer the questions. (Extension of time granted) They set the public officials up. They set them up to answer the hot political questions when they know they could answer them themselves, but they refuse to do so.

Mr Speaker, that is the politicisation of the Public Service. That is the weakening of the accountability mechanisms over the Executive. That is the responsibility of the Government, not of the Estimates Committee. It is not the Estimates Committee that has politicised the government service in this place; it is the Government, time and again. The move to contracts, the move to those sorts of performance measures on senior public servants, has jeopardised their ability to act impartially as effective officers. It may not always be their fault, but that is what has happened.

Mr Speaker, it is time that the Government took seriously what committees of this Assembly have been saying for some time, that is, that when advice is sought from public officials it is forthright, it is up-front and it is unambiguous. Government officials should have nothing to hide. If Ministers are uncomfortable with the questions asked of their officers, they should answer the questions. Simple, straightforward. That is not what happens. That is not what has happened for some time. Mr Speaker, that is, for me, quite clearly the most important recommendation in this committee's report. Quite clearly, it is the most important recommendation. I think it is sad that an Assembly committee has got to the stage of feeling that it needs to propose the possibility of swearing witnesses to ensure that evidence is accurate and honest. But that is the stage we have got to, Mr Speaker, and the instance I outlined earlier explains why.

I would also like to point out, Mr Speaker, that this is a majority view of the committee; it is not shared by only one member. It is not shared only by Mr Hird. It is shared by all other members of the committee in their support of the majority recommendations. It is shared by me, it is shared by Mr Berry, it is shared by Mr Osborne and it is shared by Mr Rugendyke. They have signed off as supporting the majority report of this committee.

Before members of the Government stand up in this place and try to make a target of a particular individual, they should think twice. They should think about what they are actually saying. They should think about what this committee is actually trying to tell them, because what this committee is trying to tell them is far from a partisan political debate. We are talking about the effectiveness, the viability, of the committee process in this Assembly and the ability of committees to effectively scrutinise the activities of the Executive.

The Government may not like that. The Government might not like to be challenged on that, but that is the job of committees. Before they stand up in this place and launch an attack on Mr Berry, as I am sure the Chief Minister is shortly to do, they should realise that there are four other names alongside that majority committee report. Those other four names are of one Labor member and two crossbench members. The Chief Minister needs to understand, Mr Speaker, that it is not a partisan political report from the Labor Party. It is a majority report which says that you are continuing to threaten the viability and the principles of Executive accountability in this place. It is time that the Government sat up and took notice of that.

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