Page 597 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
majority between the government and the opposition. At the eleventh hour, without any notice, essentially, we realised PAC had been stitched up so it was two all, so that the government could prevent any scrutiny of the executive in probably the most important committee when it comes to those matters. It was all downhill from there. So I will not accept any moralising. Nor will I accept any moralising when I get told that government members are trying to work in good faith but we see things out of estimates reports like 500 recommendations praising the government. That is not the role of a select committee or a standing committee.
That all said, we are willing to work out how we can make this work better. I note the advice of the Clerk. The advice of the Clerk with regard to Latimer House principles was that committees should, if we are going to be consistent with those principles, have majorities which are non-government majorities. That is the advice that we have got from the Clerk, and that is the position that this party maintains, based on the advice of the Clerk and the standing resolution of the Assembly with regard to the Latimer House principles. However, if we are going to have some discussions in good faith, we are prepared to negotiate and see where we come to from there.
Maybe it is a matter of interpretation, but Mr Corbell’s comments that four-member committees are something that the Labor Party is going to continue to adopt does not sound as though it gives much hope that we are going to get where we need to go. It needs to be recognised why we have committees. Fundamentally, it is about scrutiny of the executive. This is about accountability of government. It is about making sure that, without an upper house, we use the committees to review government policy, to review government programs. That is the role that they play. They do not play a role to allow government majorities to pump out 500 recommendations praising the government.
I accept there is some discussion to be had. I say here and now that we will work in good faith to make sure that there is an outcome that improves the way that committees are currently operating. I look forward to those discussions, whatever form they might take—probably with you, Mrs Dunne, in your role as Speaker. I identify that the Speaker will have a role there, but I indicate that we acknowledge that they are not working well and we will work cooperatively to address that situation.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.47): The reason I moved the amendments to the standing orders in the first place was that the committees were not working. We had a number of problems in estimates and in other committees when, because of the way the government set the committees up, the situation was leaning to a lessening of scrutiny of the government. The only beneficiary of that is the government. The community is let down by that. I simply tried to put in place a process that would make it work as best it could. The fact that we are having to codify what has been longstanding practice, because certain chairs failed to follow the longstanding practice, is an indication of the depth of the problem.
Mr Corbell is not on any of the committees. He can make whatever comments he wants, but he does not know what is going on in the committees. When you get a committee chair who has not asked that the final report—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video