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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4166 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

one of the two matters before the committee that it could well have been simply very good journalism. It was fairly well known that rates were an issue on which there would be certain recommendations and that a certain course of action would follow as a result. I think that that was pretty well common knowledge and you would not have to be an Einstein to work it out.

The other matter was probably a little bit more difficult, but it was not beyond the realms of possibility that it, too, could have been a result of some pretty good journalism. I am not quite sure what standard should be applied to a select committee but, applying the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, the committee was unable to be satisfied as to whether there was a leak. Certainly, it was impossible to source the origin of any leak there may have been.

The committee, in looking at the matter, looked at the various standing orders and felt that there were some problems with the wording of standing orders 241 and 243. Those standing orders limit or even prevent the committee following the publication trail of the two draft reports and, while there is a limited distribution initially, there can be subsequent publication of the drafts to third parties who, in turn, could be the source of information on the reports' contents or of the leaks. It is because of that difficulty that the committee recommended a rewording of the standing orders along the lines proposed in paragraph 3.28, to replace standing orders 241, 242 and 243 and asked that that be referred to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure for consideration.

Without reading out the suggested format for standing order 241, I would say that that type of standing order would enable a committee to give limited publication to enable it to have the best of advice and often to test its conclusion against an expert or experts. It would also enable a committee to authorise the release of reports under embargo so that when the presentation occurs in the Assembly it is immediately followed by an informed debate and not simply a recitation of recommendations by the various members of the committee who were involved in the inquiry.

I turn to a matter that caused the committee a great deal of concern. Indeed, it was of concern to the Estimates Committee at the time, too. I refer to the incident on 22 May of this year, during the Estimates Committee hearings, when the Minister for Health, Mr Corbell, refused to provide answers in relation to hospital waiting lists. The information was released publicly the next day-indeed, as a result of some questioning I did of Mr Corbell, early in the morning of the next day. The minister indicated that it was common practice to do media releases early in the morning. I have to accept that that may well be so. The information was released then, but it was not provided on the day it was sought.

Mr Corbell admitted that he should have provided the information that the Estimates Committee had requested of him when it was requested and not at a later time. He made a number of other comments and they are included in the report for people to see. He admitted that he had made an error of judgment and that he should have responded positively to the request by the Estimates Committee. He apologised to the Assembly and he reiterated that apology to the committee.

It is a very serious matter when a minister, a not inexperienced minister, does that. Mr Corbell has been a member of this Assembly since 1996. He agreed, and I think it

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