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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2028 ..

MR SMYTH

The danger here is that, in what I believe to be his contempt of the process, he sets a very dangerous precedent that says executive is above committees, executive is above assemblies, executive is above all else, and they can pick and choose what matters they are accountable for. That is the problem with what you have done, Mr Wood.

The issue concerning Mr Corbell is very much the same. Mr Corbell simply said, "No, I haven't got the numbers with me."But one of his staff did. She flicked through the papers and was about to hand them over when he said, "No, she can't. The staff aren't giving you the details either."The reason he gave for this was "the government will make decisions on when it announces and releases things and, as I have indicated, I'll be releasing these figures later this week."So, again, Mr Corbell believes that the government is above scrutiny and that the government is above answering questions; and that the government chooses when it will be responsible to committees and, through those committees, to this Assembly. That is also a dangerous precedent.

Can you imagine Senator Vanstone or Senator Hill appearing before Senators Faulkner and Ray and saying, "We're not going to answer your questions"? They would be forced to. Senators Ray and Faulkner are very good at taking questions asked at estimates committees as long and as far and as wide as they like. You have to give the boys credit-they do it well. Bronwyn Bishop did exactly the same when she was an opposition senator-when she was on the other side of the political coin. It is a well-established tradition that estimates committees are allowed to do that.

Again, Mr Corbell should take some lessons from the Treasurer. When the Treasurer does not want to answer a question-sorry, I shouldn't say that-when he is unsure of his answer, he is very good at leading the committee at various paces. It is a nice dance-some days it is a gentle waltz, other days it is a bit of foxtrot, and we have had some tangos. He has made use of the word "soon"to such an extent that I think his contribution ought to be recorded in a thesaurus or dictionary.

The Treasurer understands the conventions, and how those conventions are currently applied. What ministers Wood and Corbell did was rewrite conventions, and they have set very dangerous precedents. If we allow them to get away with this today, they will be able to say, "The precedent was set by the Estimates Committee inquiring into the 2003-04 budget. We were allowed to get away with it then, it's a precedent now and we refuse to answer your question."And that ruins the sort of government that we now have because it puts the executive above everything else. That is not how it works, and that is not how it should be.

We need a ruling on whether or not we, as an Assembly, regard what has happened as acceptable, and if we accept it then it is a precedent. But such a precedent will destroy honesty, openness and accountability, because ministers will then choose what they want to answer, when they will answer, and where and how they will answer. That is not how it is done. That is not the tradition.

This goes back to Magna Carta. It goes back to King John, who didn't want to be accountable and didn't want to answer questions. A couple of kings in the interim have lost their heads over it; a couple of civil wars have been fought over the supremacy of the parliament. If the apparent monarchist attitude that is now occupying the government benches-this autocratic, arrogant attitude that seems to be occupying the government

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