Page 5589 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.01): I move:
Omit subparagraph (2)(a), substitute:
“(a) one Member nominated by the Government;”.
The explanation that I have just heard for having a minister on a committee is the most astounding thing I think I have ever heard in this place, that having a minister on the committee will take the adversarial nature out of the committee. A lot of the adversarial nature of this place—I am looking of course at Mr Barr, who would be on this committee, and I am thinking, “Because Andrew will be there, this will be less adversarial?” Call me a sceptic, but I am not convinced of the case.
The claim is that this is the evolution of committees. I think that is countered by the claim that we get so often from the government that the ministers are overworked. Obviously Mr Barr is not overworked if he has got time to be on a committee. So there is that contradiction there and I am surprised the government will support this.
I hope they will support my amendment, because if the claim is we need more ministers because the ministers have too big a workload, adding to that workload, where reasonably a backbencher could perform that function, contradicts the statement. So ministers are either overworked and overburdened by the portfolios that they have got or they are not. If we are going to add to their workload by putting ministers on a committee, then clearly ministers are not overworked. Clearly they are not overworked.
I think the committee system works perfectly well without necessarily having ministers in. And there is a separation issue here. A minister will undoubtedly appear before this committee to present the government’s case on the bill or the government’s position on the bill. Given this is the Election Commitments Costing Bill and, as we have already seen, because Mr Barr stood up over the last couple of days to proudly put on the record their costings of our policies, the person in this case who is responsible for the department that will administer this bill is now going to sit on the committee. If we are going to put the poacher inside the huntsman’s lodge, it is illogical.
Mr Barr: I cannot think of any of you as hens, I am sorry.
MR SMYTH: No, I was not going near “hens”, believe you me. Chooks and hens were not part of my consideration, although there are a couple of chooks perhaps that might be floating around. But it is illogical to say that a minister who has sat in cabinet where a bill has gone through will normally then be on the select committee so that it takes the adversarial nature out of the process.
Members interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, please do not carry on conversations across the chamber.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video