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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2031 ..

MR SMYTH

of law. It is a rule of law that has been fought for for over 800 years. Men and women have died for this right to ask questions. Kings have lost their heads, and some would say that was probably appropriate. But once such a precedent is set, it cannot be taken back. And believe me, the precedent will be used.

There is a form to be followed, and Mr Quinlan is very good at following it. Minister Gallagher and the Chief Minister answered as they felt was appropriate and didn't knock back our questions. Indeed, Mr Corbell did. Mr Wood ignored that form. Mr Wood seeks to change how we do what we do in this place, and that is dangerous, Mr Speaker.

As I have said, the opposition will agree to the referral to a select committee. I notice that a couple of the Labor members have said, "Oh, we didn't do it. What would we gain from it?"I think the answer to what they would gain if the leak had in fact come from the Labor side of the place can be found in an article in the Canberra Times this morning, which said that matters of contempt fly from both sides.

What truly worries me is the muddying of the waters that has occurred. In some ways you would say that it was really good tactical politics on the part of whoever did this, because it has muddied the waters. But the fundamental issue that we have got to come back to, the ultimate issue that must be considered by the committee if it is established, is whether or not we as an Assembly, either in this place or through our committees, are willing to accept the Wood precedent-it will become known as the Wood precedent-that a minister can come down and say these words, that a minister can just ignore questions, and in fact that a minister can take over a committee, which is what Mr Wood attempted to do in saying, "No, I'll allow that, I won't allow that."

Mr Wood used these words:

... this committee needs to remember that matters of personal responsibility and what happened and when are matters for elsewhere.

Says who? He continued:

For that reason, I, with officers from ACT Policing and Emergency Services Bureau, won't be answering any questions relating to the details of the bushfires of January ...

The bushfires of January have led to huge expenditures by this government, and it is appropriate that an estimates committee canvass how those expenditures occurred and whether or not those expenditures could have been avoided.

Estimates committees across this country, and indeed in this jurisdiction, have always had the right to ask questions whenever they have felt it necessary to do so. Ministers have always had the right to deny answering the question, to take questions on notice, or to answer them it in whatever way they want to, but they have never asserted the right that ministers can determine what will happen where and when. Nor have they ever asserted, as Mr Corbell did, that choosing the timing of the release of information is the prerogative only of the government.

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