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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 438 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

I accept that the Assembly can assert its right to have a say or its feeling that it should have a say, but I am concerned that we are blurring the responsibilities here. There are officers within Planning and Land Management who are preparing draft terms of reference for consideration by government. That consideration by the government has not yet occurred, and no draft terms of reference have been provided to me as the responsible minister. It is concerning that people who are expert in these areas of transport policy have to have their proposals revisited by the Assembly before the government can proceed.

I would be happy for the Assembly to be critical of the terms of reference once they were released, if the Assembly thought they were inadequate. I would be happy to broaden the terms of reference if the Assembly thought that they were inadequate and if the arguments stacked up. But I do not think it is appropriate for the Assembly to effectively get involved in the writing of draft terms of reference, which is really a job for the officers this territory employs within Planning and Land Management. That is my argument and that is my reason for not being happy with the approach proposed.

It is not, as Ms Tucker suggests, an unwillingness to be open and accountable. The government is entirely willing to be open, accountable and transparent in its processes. Indeed, the government already has been transparent in its processes, as we have outlined that this study is commencing and that draft terms of reference are under way. There are potentially hundreds of other consultancies and other terms of reference and studies being commissioned by any government at any stage. Is it appropriate for the Assembly to get involved in the draft terms of reference of each of those potential studies? It is nonsensical. There was not any requirement or compulsion on government to advise of this study. But I thought it was important to advise of this study because of the interest in the issue and the public debate around the issue. That is why I indicated that this study was going to commence.

It is inappropriate for the Assembly to get involved, effectively as a committee, in writing draft terms of reference, which is essentially the responsibility of professionals we employ within Planning and Land Management. The decision for such terms of reference is the responsibility of the elected government. I am happy to accept criticism on the terms of reference, I am happy to consider broadening them if that criticism is warranted and there is a belief that the terms of reference are not adequate, but I do not think as a matter of process and as a matter of administration it is acceptable for the Assembly to get involved as a committee in writing draft terms of reference for a government study, which is essentially the proposition that is being put forward by the Liberal Party today.

As I indicated earlier, I am quite happy, regardless of the outcome of today's motion, to make available to members the terms of reference once they have been finalised, and I am certainly open to comment by members in relation to the appropriateness or otherwise of those terms of reference. But I do not think the Assembly should confuse the role of the Assembly with that of the administration in developing draft terms of reference for what is a government consultancy, one among many other consultancies that occur every year.

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