Page 908 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
under your wing and whack some sense into his head so that, as a committee, we can at least be proud that the committee is behaving and performing and so that we can demonstrate to our community that the committee is operating in the way that it should do in the best traditions of the Westminster system.
We in the opposition are absolutely adamant that we would like to see the chairing of this committee returned to the traditional way. We are asking the government to show some common sense in this, to show just a grain of democratic thought. We shoot this amendment by Ms MacDonald down in flames. It is a joke. We ask that members opposite come to their senses on this question and let us have a genuine discussion about how the estimates committee could be returned to the previously high standards that existed before you mob came to government and ruined it.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.32): I want to say a few words to underline and support the sentiments of Mr Stefaniak and Mr Pratt on this matter. I share the views that the amendment that has been put forward is quite inappropriate, that the motion that Mr Stefaniak has put forward should stand as it is and that these matters should be determined by the members of the committee.
When you have a unicameral legislature, there are limitations in terms of accountability. And boy, haven’t we seen that in Queensland over the years? A strength that over the years has often been cited in publications, briefings and so on in relation to the ACT is the strength of its committee system, but we have seen that committee system being diluted as a consequence of a government that has become numb with fear in terms of scrutiny and accountability. It has become numb with fear. I had a chance to read the Sensis index the other day, and I noticed the growing level of disquiet amongst members of the ACT community over the performance of this government—a growing level of disquiet indicated now in survey work.
Whilst I would like members opposite to come to their senses and abandon this amendment and support Mr Stefaniak’s motion, deep down I must admit that the more they attempt to block scrutiny and fight against examination of the management of the government, the more it will work to the advantage of the opposition in the October 2008 election.
This performance by the government is a reaction of fear. Last year they loaded the committee with three members because they thought that three ineffective members would be better than two ineffective members. But the fact of the matter is that, because of the expertise of opposition members, even that failed to work. They were left with an embarrassingly scandalous situation in terms of the way the committee hearings took place.
We had the secret hearings. When things got tough on EpiCentre, when Mr Seselja started getting to the nub of issues, they hit the panic button and went into in camera evidence as though there was some horrendous scandal that they were fearful would be uncovered. What kind of government does that? In camera evidence because some straightforward questions are being asked of ACTPLA? And there is more on that saga that we will hear as time goes on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .