Page 1196 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS BURKE: Whatever, Mr Corbell. Do not try to cover up your embarrassing gaffe this morning by slinging personal attacks across the chamber. You need to get your house in order. You need to be on the job and doing things properly because this is a serious issue for the ACT, a very serious issue. I think that the government is running scared by having to have total control over the proceedings of the estimates committee. It just shows that they are so scared of what we might find out. I think it flags something else, Mr Speaker. It says to me that it is sending a message to public servants that may be appearing before the committee, “Do not worry as we are not going to let you speak anyway. We will do all the talking.” Mr Speaker, the amendment circulated is an absolute disgrace. We cannot support it. I support Mr Smyth’s motion and it should stand.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (11.53): Mr Speaker, I rise to talk to both the amendment and the motion. I have a number of points to make. I think that the amendment is a pathetic attempt by the government to tear out of this place what has been traditionally one of the few proper exercises in accountability in the calendar for Assembly sittings. I think that the amendment reflects Mr Corbell’s traditional attitude and default position of being evasive. It is so typical of this government that, rather than having a balanced debate in this place and a real inquiry into the budgetary matters affecting this community, they collapse the scrum. We have had a history of that from this government. We know that the government have collapsed all debate and inquiry into the bushfire disaster.
Ms MacDonald: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issues that Mr Pratt is raising about the bushfire inquiry have nothing to do with the establishment of a select committee on estimates last year or the establishment of one this year.
MR SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that. Mr Pratt has to remain relevant to the debate, but it is possible in a discussion about an estimates committee to raise almost anything with which the estimates committee might concern itself. Tedious repetition might be something that I could focus on if it happens too often.
MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, on the attempted point of order: the relevance here is that—
MR SPEAKER: Never mind; it has been ruled on. Just get on with it.
MR PRATT: You are quite right, but perhaps I can speak about it in the body of my presentation. The relevance here is that the matter of transparency and openness, which is what the estimates committee hearings must be all about, is reflected by the government’s default position, as demonstrated by its pathetic failure to inquire meaningfully and deeply into the bushfire disaster. I think that I am entitled to respond to the comments by Mr Hargreaves when he slagged off Mr Gary Nairn, whom he said had, through the national bushfire inquiry, overridden all sensibilities. We need to understand that Gary Nairn was doing what this government had not done: he was seeking to have a transparent inquiry into the greatest disaster to hit this community. That is why we are concerned that this government will not allow this Assembly to put in place a proper and transparent estimates hearing process.
Mr Barr was concerned about a couple of issues. I will get back to the mug issue shortly, but I absolutely recall that in the debacle of last year’s estimates committee hearings
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .