Page 2164 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
involved with an altercation with pupils. She attempted to intervene. She got violently attacked. In the same discussion with me, she expressed—and keep in your mind this is not somebody I know; I had just met her—that she and others were sick and tired of this. Not only were they not being properly trained in the teaching of science, but also they were just tired of the situation where they simply are not being protected and given backup. (Second speaking period taken.)
When members pursue these issues—and they are serious issues being pursued—it is reasonable to expect ministers to be more willing to give frank answers. It is worth drawing the attention of members to the ACT ministerial code of conduct. It states:
All Ministers are to recognise the importance of full and true disclosure and accountability to the Parliament. Under the ACT’s Westminster-style system, the Executive Government of the ACT is answerable to the Legislative Assembly and, through it, to the people.
One would hope that this clear statement would be enough to get ministers to answer questions. But unfortunately that is not the case. The dissenting report of the estimates committee has made a recommendation on this issue. It is important and is worth mentioning. The recommendation asks ministers to ensure that they make a bona fide attempt to answer the substance of any questions asked, rather than avoiding questions through hairsplitting. This is particularly important for questions on notice, where the questioner is not there to amend the question if the minister takes an overly technical view.
When ministers feel that they have to be clever or evasive with these replies or say that it is simply too much work, it performs a disservice to the people of the ACT. For example, I have asked questions on notice in relation to fines—diplomatic fines in particular. Whereas in other parts of the world, particularly in the UK, they are quite happy to listen and say who is not doing the right thing, we in Canberra have taken this incredibly covert approach.
We do not want to let people know what the figures are; we do not want to disclose how many are written off; and we do not want to name the particular countries involved. Frankly they do a major disservice to the vast majority in that community who are abiding by the laws of the host country.
Diplomats have raised this issue with me. They have said the trouble with this issue is that they are all tarred with the same brush, and basically held to account and blamed for not paying their fines. Some of them could rattle off the countries that they thought were the major offenders. There is no compelling argument as to why that information should not be forthcoming and why every attempt was made to close it down.
There are other aspects to that saga that I will not put on the public record. It is poor if we take this approach to legitimate questions either asked through estimates or through the questions on notice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .