Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2027 ..
MR SMYTH
(continuing):simply said, "I will not answer. I have decided that you can't ask me a question."That is not how it works. That is putting the executive, that is putting the government, above the Assembly. The government is responsible to the Assembly because we are here collectively as the representatives of the people of the ACT.
The case for Mr Wood's refusal is, of course, diminished by the fact that the Chief Minister answered and took on notice questions about the bushfires. Mr Corbell allowed us to question Guy Thurston of ACTION about ACTION's role on the day of and the preceding days of the bushfires. Also, Ms Gallagher, as minister, allowed us to question Family Services about their role. So three of the four ministers that were asked about these issues in an attempt to find the justification for the funding that is now required answered questions and answered in considered tones. They said that they could not answer some of the questions; they said that they would take others on notice; and to some they gave quite straightforward answers, and that is how it is meant to be. Ministers cannot come down and dictate to a committee what a committee can and cannot ask.
I think most people here would acknowledge that Mr Quinlan is pretty good at taking and handling questions. We are all aware of the fact that questions are answered in different ways. As you have said many times, Mr Speaker, you are not here to direct how ministers answer questions and, of course, it is appropriate that the standing orders do not dictate that. But what is inappropriate is Mr Wood coming down carte blanche and just saying, "Nah, off the agenda."
What will happen if this is said and a precedent is set? Precedents are quoted from other jurisdictions as well as this one. Ministers will come down and say, "Based on the Wood precedent of June or May 2003, we don't have to answer that and we going to rule out all the questions on the Canberra Hospital, we are going to rule out all the questions on education. We are just going to rule out all your questions."
The ways in which ministers can answer questions and what they can claim are well known and established. Mr Wood ignored all of that and, without giving reasons, simply said, "Nah, you can't do it. You can't even ask the questions."As chair I politely pointed out that was not his right.
Mr Wood
: Are you going to read the terms of reference, too?MR SMYTH
: As chair I politely pointed out that he could not do that and he refused to acknowledge that. When we insisted on asking a few questions, he said, "No, refuse; no, refuse."Mr Wood interjects, "Are you going to refer to your terms of reference?"Yes I am. There are mammoth expenditures in this year's budget, next year's budget and in the out years as a result of the bushfires and it is reasonable for members and the public to know why those costs have been incurred, it is reasonable to expect questions and it is reasonable for the committee and its members to expect answers-answers that Mr Stanhope, the Chief Minister, had the courtesy to give, answers the Minister for Planning, Mr Corbell, was kind enough to give and answers the Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Ms Gallagher, was kind enough to give. But not Mr Wood.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .