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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 503 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I recall a case during the term of the Labor Government. The then Opposition, the Liberal Party, sought to have evidence given directly by a government official - from memory, from the Department of Health - and the Minister of the day refused to have that public servant speak on the matter. He insisted that the question put to the public servant be answered by the Minister. I note that that was obviously the view of the then Labor Government and, although I as a member of the committee was trying to get to that particular public servant, I was unsuccessful. Despite some complaining about it at the time, that was where the matter rested.

I have to say, we acknowledge that ultimately it is the right of the Government to put evidence before committees. It was the right of the then Government, as it is the right of the now Government, to put evidence before committees through its servants and agents in the best way it feels appropriate. It is not appropriate to have those servants or agents compelled to speak on behalf of the Government if the Government itself wishes to speak on its own behalf, if you like.

That was the view put very forcefully by the then Labor Government. It is the view that we would take. I am not quite sure if it is the view taken by this committee. I am not sure whether members of the committee were aware of the history of this, but it clearly needs to be underscored. I distinguish two situations. If there were to be an inquiry into the conduct of say a public servant - I do not know whether such a thing has occurred before in the Assembly - it may be appropriate to call a particular public servant as a witness. That might be a distinguishing situation. But generally speaking, if people seek the view of the government - that is, the view of the Public Service which supports the government - then this is appropriately a matter which comes to the committee of the Assembly via the government itself.

There was also discussion about the question of referral of matters to Assembly committees. In paragraph 3(12) of the Assembly committee report a comment was made about the fact that some Ministers were referring matters to Assembly committees to have them investigate those matters when, in fact, the Assembly as a whole had not referred to that committee matters of the kind the Minister was then raising.

I have to confess that there is probably some level of confusion about how this operates in Assembly committees. In the past some committees have insisted that any matters to consider should come via a resolution on the floor of the Assembly. I am also aware that other committees have on occasions raised self-referred matters to committees for consideration. I venture to suggest that the criticism of Ministers which is inherent in paragraph 3(12) is probably more fairly a criticism levelled at committees as a whole, because they themselves have assumed to be able to take on broad inquiries without reference from the Assembly in the past. It would probably help to clear that matter up in some way. I am not quite sure how, but we should clarify what I assume is the correct state of play, which is, that only the Assembly should refer matters to the committees.

In certain circumstances it might also be appropriate to provide to a committee a broad heading of categories of self-referral. I will give one example of this. Committees have been referred, and asked to report upon, particular Bills before the Assembly. Amendments have then been put forward for consideration by Assembly members, and the committee has been unable to consider those amendments because the amendments were not referred formally to the committee.

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