Page 42 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 7 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a view different from the government’s. It has always been there as a view different from the government.
In her inaugural speech today, Dr Foskey commented on how this will be quite a different place. We need to be very mindful of that. This will be a different place, because now that we have a majority government, we can work in one of two ways: we can continue to work in a gentlemanly fashion, or we can just ride roughshod over everybody. What we have here today is the government deciding to ride roughshod over everybody, and we have a travesty of the committee system. The government has proposed a travesty of the committee system.
Dr Foskey and I attended meetings that were basically a matter of, “This is what we are going to do. Take it or leave it.” Suggestions were made about better and more innovative ways of addressing it, sometimes just harking back to the past and saying, “In the past it worked effectively; can we consider doing it like that?” But the answer is, “We have got the numbers, so we will do it our way.”
What we have here are called general purpose committees. We all understand how general purpose committees work. Let’s have a look at some of them. I like this one; this one will be mine: the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People. This committee is to examine matters relating to early childhood—absolutely fantastic—and care; primary, secondary and post early education; vocational training; and non-government education. Then we add to it youth and family services, technology, arts, culture—so, only young people are involved in technology, the arts and culture—and sport and recreation; so anyone who is older—that is, more than 25—should not have an interest in sport and recreation.
But the one that is really good is the Standing Committee on Health and Disability. That is its title. And what does it do? It examines matters relating to hospitals; community, public and mental health; health promotion; disease prevention—all of those things you would expect—substance abuse; targeted health programs; community services—we have not mentioned anything about disabilities yet—including services for older persons—okay, women. So if they are not health and disability services, do women get a look in anywhere else in this committee structure? No, Mr Speaker. Poverty—now, poverty only relates to health and disability; there is no mention of housing here—multicultural services; so only people with an interest in multicultural services and indigenous services as they relate to health and disability services get a look in under this committee.
This committee structure is just riven with gaps. And then we get to my old stamping ground, the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, to examine matters relating to planning—of course—and public works. Mr Speaker, in the negotiations we had at length about the structure of the general purpose committees it was generally agreed that (1) this Assembly had never ever properly scrutinised public works and (2) there was a lot of merit in the discussion that we should have a stand-alone public works committee. But the government only wants five committees, because that is as many as it can control.
Despite the recommendations of a number of committee reports in the last Assembly, including those agreed to by Mr Hargreaves, there was a general view that there should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .