Page 1491 - Week 05 - Thursday, 7 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Representatives Practice and Odgers, suggests there is something more that needs to be considered. That was the purpose of Mrs Dunne’s writing to you to ask whether precedence should be given, and that was the purpose of moving the motion that said we did not agree with your decision.
These are serious matters. The control of a committee of the Assembly is a serious issue. All of the committees have a serious role in the functions they perform, perhaps none more serious than the estimates committee. The estimates committee is the vehicle by which we scrutinise the expenditure of the government’s budget. As such, it determines very much what will occur in this place—not just in the Assembly but also in the Canberra community—for the coming year and for years to come, whether it be through programs established or for capital works.
What we want is very clear, very open, scrutiny of that process. Indeed, that was promised. The day before the election Mr Stanhope said that there was no need to fear majority government. We have seen a pattern emerging, culminating in this debate today. We have seen the number of sitting days restricted; we have seen sitting days cancelled; we have seen the hours of debate restricted; we have seen the gag applied innumerable times in the first six months of this Assembly; we have seen the government take control of a majority of the committees; and we are now seeing control being taken of the estimates committee, which is very much a move away from the tradition of this place. I note that Norm Jensen, a member of the Alliance Government, led an estimates committee once.
Mrs Burke: Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. There is a lot of noise coming from the government benches. If they would not mind toning it down, it would be helpful.
MR SPEAKER: Order, please, members! Mr Smyth has the floor.
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. All we sought to do this morning was to have this possible breach looked at. That was the whole point of what we attempted to do. Concerns were raised. Upon checking through Odgers and House of Representatives Practice, there seemed to be some case to answer, and that was what we attempted to do.
The Chief Minister’s defence as to why this matter should not go ahead is that it is just a singular waste of time. He said that a third of the time of the Assembly is given over to private members’ business. I think he is going back a little bit in the record. The fullest days in this place are, in fact, private members’ days because the private members of this place have an agenda and are attempting to carry out that agenda, given that we have all been elected by the people of Canberra to be here to serve them.
This is about making sure that there is always proper scrutiny. When one goes to, say, page 709 of House of Representatives Practice, one finds that there are provisions of the Crimes Act that provide that:
… a Member who asks for or receives or obtains, or offers or agrees to ask for or receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on an understanding that the exercise by him of his duty or authority as such a Member will, in any manner, be influenced or affected, is guilty of an offence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .