Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2029 ..
MR SMYTH
(continuing):benches-is allowed to continue, then all of us will have lost something valuable, and that is the right to question a minister about what he is doing.
Mr Speaker, forms can be used to deal with these matters. If something is judicial, we can claim sub judice, and we can argue about that. A question could involve commercial-in-confidence. Again, I go back to the Treasurer. The Treasurer sent a document and said, "This is commercial-in-confidence. We would like you to keep it commercial-in-confidence because it is going to affect a few other things that might happen."The committee considered it, took it on board, and said, "Okay, we'll give him a tick this time."But the Treasurer in this case followed the process in the correct manner. Ministers Wood and Corbell did not.
So we have to make sure that we are very clear on the rules of what constitutes when and where you can ask a question, and what and where and how and why you answer it.
Mr Wood
: The standing orders tell us that, too.MR SMYTH
: Well, then, you would be in contravention of the standing orders because you cannot refuse to accept a question.The second point, Mr Speaker, is that you might say it is sub judice, you might say it is a matter of commercial-in-confidence, or you might say it is cabinet-in-confidence. The forms are well know, but both of these ministers chose simply not to answer.
Mr Corbell made the particularly arrogant comment that "the government will make decisions on when it announces and releases things". Well, Mr Corbell, you don't have that right. When you are asked questions, answers shall be relevant and concise. You just cannot say no. I do not believe that is an acceptable form.
Part (c) of my amendment relates to the creation and distribution of the document known as Budget Estimates 2003 by certain persons within ACT Health. Mr Speaker, this is a very serious offence, and I think it is a very serious contempt of the Estimates Committee proceedings. When it was released to the media-and I managed to get a copy on the Monday-the minister told us that one person was involved, and that person had been disciplined. By Thursday that had grown to a number of people, and they had been disciplined. When we asked the minister who were they, what was the story, what had happened, there was blanket refusal-"I refuse to answer your questions."
The committee was actually forced to demand the documents of the minister. This is one of the few powers that committees have. I do not know how often it has been used in this place-I have not been here for as long as some other members but I do not recall it being used before. We demanded that all relevant documents be tabled.
The curious thing is we got about six or seven pages. One was the original document sent from officer Y to officer X. Officer Y's document says, "This document was produced after the executive meeting this morning"-it was produced after a meeting; it is an outcome of a meeting of the health executive-"Hope it's useful."It is flicked to officer X. Officer X, whose title block says "Director", flashed it around the department. Almost 30 officers of the health executive got it with the recommendation "This was a great thing, this is a really good effort, pay attention, use it". If you then look at the receipt
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .