Page 905 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In relation to Dr Foskey’s comments, yes, I endorse the Greens’ role in the committee—and that of the crossbench. That is why the government is supporting the substantive motion moved by Mr Stefaniak. It is an important role. Dr Foskey is correct: she does often ask questions that are not asked by those opposite. I would go so far as to say that Dr Foskey tends to ask some of the more intelligent questions—though not always. Dr Foskey has had her moments for somewhat curious questions, but generally speaking she has had more intelligent questions to ask than some shadow ministers did last year.
I am very much looking forward to again engaging in debate with Mr Smyth over matters of tourism, sport and recreation. I am sure that he will continue to pursue those issues. I hope he is a member of the committee this year. I hope that internal Liberal Party politics do not stop Mr Smyth from being one of the members on the committee. I know that he will make a wonderful contribution during the course of the estimates process. I look forward to all members contributing in that way. You have all got the opportunity.
Mr Mulcahy: Put us all on the committee then.
MR BARR: We have had a couple of insinuations that certain members of the government backbench were not prepared to do the work. There was this insinuation. By there being only two government members, Mr Seselja indicated that someone was wanting to slack off. What is your proposal, Mr Seselja? That we have all three—
Mr Seselja: We could have all non-executive members on.
MR BARR: You would like to amend it? You have that in effect anyway, do you not? Everyone comes in and asks questions, Mr Seselja. The amendment that Ms MacDonald has moved in no way impinges on the right of any member to come in and ask a question or put questions on notice. And with a committee balanced the way it is, the raw politics of this are very clear: if all non-government members wish to pursue some sort of agenda against the government, they will have the numbers on this committee. You can hardly accuse the government of seeking to stack the committee or attack democracy in the territory. Seriously, of all of the confected and overstated claims!
I agree that this place is probably the most democratic parliament in the country, and we do have a very strong tradition. The opportunities that are afforded to members in this place are well in advance of those in other parliaments. For people to seriously argue that this amendment in any way undermines democracy in the ACT is, to quote Kevin Rudd, a bridge too far, ladies and gentlemen. It is a bridge too far. You all know it. The amendment that Ms MacDonald has moved is a sensible and practical one that deserves the support of the Assembly. I am sure that it will receive the support of the Assembly. We all look forward to a constructive estimates process.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (11.22): I stand to support Mr Stefaniak’s motion, which is an attempt to bring the estimates process back to a fair, open and accountable system—something that Mr Barr would not recognise if he tripped over it. I reject Ms MacDonald’s amendment, which is simply another scrum-collapsing exercise to shore up the government’s poor position.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .