Page 256 - Week 01 - Thursday, 27 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If we in this place are simply going to have committees that come up with reports commending the government for how wonderful Andrew Barr is and how wonderful Simon Corbell is, what is the point of that committee system? That is what they did. Now, 42 of those recommendations were actually copied and pasted—they were duplicates—so it was probably only 450 in reality.
I agree that the committee system is not working well, but let us not have this myth that this is a deliberate political ploy by the opposition. When you refer to the Latimer House principles, to the continuing resolution of this place, and to the Clerk’s advice, he told us—and I have tabled that document I think here before—that to not have opposition majorities on those committees is a step away from the Latimer House principles.
And you lot do not care because what you want is a committee system that protects this government. You want a committee system that is muted, and that is what you have achieved. Well done; congratulations. You have done exactly what you set out to do, which is to make the committee system unworkable and something which does not scrutinise this government. That was your objective. You have achieved that and now what you are trying to do is spin it as somehow the opposition’s fault.
There is a very easy solution to this. Let us do it. I have moved a motion in this place before to that effect. Let us listen to the Clerk’s advice. Let us be consistent with the Latimer House principles and let us have opposition majorities on those committees. By having two opposition members and one government member, that would allow the backbench of the Labor Party—which I appreciate has got a lot on, particularly with the appointment of a sixth minister that is pending—to actually spend more time on the detailed work on the fewer committees that they would then sit on. And then judge how we do that job. If you think that we are just playing rank politics with the majority committees and you say that, that is fine. I think that the onus would be on us to make sure that the committee reports that we have provided are balanced but, importantly, consistent with the Latimer House principles and are a genuine critique of government policy and government programs.
That is a way forward that I have tried to achieve in this place before. I think that is reasonable, in accordance with the Latimer House principles, which is a continuing resolution, and in accordance with the Clerk’s advice. Let us not have any of this nonsense from the government and the Greens about how the Liberals are dragging the committee system down when it is the government and the Greens that set up an unworkable system deliberately to make sure that scrutiny of the government was avoided.
We are going to have a lot more of these debates in this place, I am sure. There is a way forward that we have proposed that is a workable way forward. I do not want to hear those opposite trying to create a fiction that this is the opposition’s fault. Go back to the origins, the substance of the debate. Go back to the way the system is meant to work. Go back to the Latimer House principles. There is a way forward. Enough of this muckraking, enough of this nonsense, enough of the allegations that you are making about my members who are doing a bloody good job on committees to get this wrapped up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video