Page 2349 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Given these high ideals, both back in 2001 and at the commencement of this term, I think it is worth looking at where we are at the moment in that process and reflecting on where we have come from.

In estimates we have seen a number of examples of this not being lived up to—a number of unfortunate examples. The most blatant of these is discussed in the estimates committee report. It relates to the conduct of the planning minister. The planning minister and the health minister were both asked to come back and answer questions in relation to the call in of the car park at Canberra Hospital. This was an area of great interest during the health committee inquiry. It turns out—we found out subsequently, only after that second day of hearings when the health minister appeared—that it was then that a letter went to the planning minister asking that he call the process in.

We believe that that is very interesting timing, to say the least. We became even more interested, obviously—we did not know about it at this point, but we became more interested in looking at it when we saw the planning minister make an announcement on Friday at the end of estimates. On Friday afternoon, the day after he appeared as planning minister, when we could ask him questions about this, he made the announcement—after the conclusion of the estimates hearings—that he would be calling the car park in.

The way this was handled by both ministers is unfortunate. If you have got a reasonable argument for doing something, you should not have to hide it. We all acknowledge—I know that Mr Smyth, when he was minister and in opposition, and I myself as shadow planning minister have acknowledged—that on occasion the use of call-in powers is eminently reasonable. We believe that the call-in power should exist and should be used from time to time. That is our position.

We believe that it can be used for bad reasons and for good reasons. If you are confident of your reasons, why would you not be open about it? Why would you not just say to the committee, when we were asking questions about this, “Well, actually, we do have some concerns about delay, and for that reason we will be calling it in.” They did not; they tried to avoid scrutiny. As a result, we had to call the health minister and the planning minister back. They were fairly simple questions that could have been easily dealt with when we had those ministers there in front of us and there would have been no need to reconvene. They made it difficult.

The problem was that the health minister agreed to come back, to her credit, but the planning minister said no. It is not up to the planning minister to determine when it is reasonable to respond to a committee request. The estimates committee is charged with the task of examining the budget and asking questions of ministers. It is up to the estimates committee as to what kind of questions they ask of ministers. It is not up to the planning minister to determine unilaterally that he does not believe he needs to come back and answer.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .