Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2804 ..
Mr Corbell: Look at the response to the recommendation, Mrs Dunne-we are going to do an independent cost/benefit analysis. We've agreed with your recommendation, Mrs Dunne. So why don't you just go back and read the Estimates Committee response before you shoot your mouth off?
MRS DUNNE: Okay, why can't you just say "Agreed"? If you really mean that you're going to do it, just say "Agreed". Constantly in this place there are recommendations of substantial import from this Estimates Committee to which you have these weasel words "Well, we'd like to do it, but it's really very difficult".
I will go to recommendation 10, where the committee recommended, "Institute a code of conduct for ministers." This was done in the first three months of the previous government. And, with nine months and waiting, when we ask for it to be done by the first sitting day in 2003, we hear, "There are so many things that we have to do and there might be a few other problems that emerge along the way, and we'll try really hard, we really, really will," but in fact what it means is you won't do it.
This is a government that is not prepared to be honest. This is a government that is not prepared to be open. And how will it deal with conflicts of interest?
Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
MRS DUNNE: It will not be able to deal with conflicts of interest in an open way.
MR SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Mrs Dunne, resume your seat.
Mr Corbell: I think that to suggest the government is not prepared to be honest is unparliamentary, and I would ask Mrs Dunne to withdraw the comment.
MR SPEAKER: Well, it's drawing the line-there is a collective dishonesty-and I think that's getting pretty close to the line, Mrs Dunne.
Mrs Dunne: Well, if the members of the government are offended, I withdraw it.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mrs Dunne.
Mr Corbell: Graceful as always, Mrs Dunne.
MRS DUNNE: Perhaps I am learning from the Corbell school of withdrawing and apologising. While we are on this subject of openness, I would like to touch briefly on just a couple of issues-things that are close to my heart. In this place last week, we had a reference of the Planning and Land Bill to the Planning and Environment Committee. And something that flows from that is the Estimates Committee's recommendation 26 that talks about the associated consequential amendments that need to be completed so that the Planning and Land Bill can be considered, at length.
At the moment we have an off-the-shelf piece of legislation and the devil is in the detail. When we have asked for the consequential amendments to be made ready and available so they can be scrutinised, what we get is that they will be tabled prior to debate. There is a little mental reservation there that says that this minister doesn't actually want to see