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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2030 ..

MR SMYTH

notice on the sheet that was provided I think you will find that there are 29 people on the list and I think 26 of them opened it. One of them went in very early on Monday morning and just deleted it from his system-a very smart man.

The minister was asked to provide all of the documents, including emails, including the disciplinary action, including the distribution of the email and the response of those people who received it. Even though it was demanded of him through the standing orders, the minister did not give us what we asked for. So we cannot know how widespread this was.

It is interesting to note that the explanation on the day that the minister appeared before estimates was that everybody was aghast and everybody was apologetic when they were caught. The document was distributed on about the 12th and they appeared before the committee on 22 June. Apparently there are no email transactions between anybody who received the document. Nobody who read it flashed back and said, "This is terrible."Apparently nobody wrote back and said, "This is great. Why don't you add X, Y and Z?"

Apparently nothing happened. Twenty-nine or so individuals in the health department received a document, most were opened that day, and nobody did anything about it. That is unbelievable, and that is why this third item must go to the committee as well. The story has shifted. It started on the Monday as one person; by Thursday it was two people or maybe more; a week later there are at least 30 people involved. We were not told what the response was and how they intended to deal with it until it became a public issue.

I have not got the correspondence with me, but the minister's letter says, "We're now going to have, in effect, a witch-hunt. We're going to find out how it leaked."He is not talking about fixing the culture in his department that even saw such a thing written down. I think we all acknowledge that departments often have meetings at which people get together to think about what they going to do about estimates, how they are going to approach certain issues. But nobody has written this down in a blatant attempt to say, in effect, "It's okay to lie to the committee. If you don't want the committee to know, take it on notice, don't tell them."

I think the gravity is that this behaviour has been taken to a level beyond anything that has ever happened before. The minister's failure to disclose to the committee what it asked for indicates to me that there is more to be learnt, and I think it is very important, because of the dangerous precedent involved, that we are made aware of what has happened.

I know it would be easy to just dismiss this and say, "Okay, it's the argy-bargy of estimates."(Extension of time granted.) But the problem for me and for the opposition is the precedent that this will create. If a minister does not want to be scrutinised, if a minister does not want to answer questions, he comes down and says, "Today we're not talking about X, Y and Z; today I'm not giving you answers."And that is the problem.

It would be easy to dismiss it as argy-bargy. In fact, I suspect members have thought, "Okay, it's a bit of a political stunt."But it is not a political stunt. What is at risk is the fundamental tenet that we, as a committee appointed by this place to scrutinise the budget that will govern the ACT for the following years and for the out years, have the right to ask ministers questions. That is not a political stunt: that is the fundamental rule

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