Page 2692 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the ACT which has elected a particular parliament is followed. That comes with a new way, in a sense. We have not had an eight, eight, one parliament before, so it has required us to look at a different role of committees. But I do not think anything is broken other than a view from the opposition that they would like to exercise control on every committee.
I think we have just got to cut through and say it as it is: this is less about the Latimer House principles and more about how Mr Hanson wants to conduct the operations of the committees. He says he would use it responsibly, but sorry for being a little bit cynical about that. I reflect back to last year’s public accounts committee inquiry into the emergency department data manipulation where I witnessed a side of Mr Hanson I do not think anyone had seen before—that is, a preparedness to get down into the gutter, to bring members of my family in that situation into committee proceedings and besmirch their professional representation to the point where they have made certain career decisions based on that. That is what we saw when he did not have power on committees.
Is he trying to make us believe that he is going to be the fair-go guy if the opposition controls all committees and that he chairs some of those committees? Well, forgive me for not believing that. I think many witnesses who have appeared before Mr Hanson would find it a little hard to believe as well. Let us remember that the opposition has never, ever in the life of this Assembly controlled the committees as outlined in the motion proposed by Mr Hanson, so forgive me for being a little bit cynical about that.
I do not think we have seen any indication that the Liberal Party, whenever they gain extra capacity or power, have used that in any sense in a responsible way. It is fair to bring those issues to the table, because that is what this motion is about—it is not about Latimer House; it is about a desire by the opposition to control the committee system and, therefore, seek to control outcomes that impact on the government.
Mr Smyth said it, I think, when we were debating this motion in November. He interjected and said, “There will be no pain for the government in this.” Again, that demonstrates the approach of the opposition and what they want to see through the committee system. Well, it is not the way the committee system should work. Yes, it is a different way with two members of each side on committees. But it is up to the chairs of those committees about how they want to approach that responsibility, to use the power available to the committee as a whole responsibly and to deliver the outcomes they want. I cannot see any reason why it cannot work.
The report that was tabled by Mr Hanson as chair of estimates I presume was the report he wanted to table, so he still has the capacity to table reports highly critical of government. I imagine we will see that continue over the next four years. I really do not think your work is being curtailed in any way or that your ability to have a say is being curtailed in any way under the operations as they exist now.
This motion should not be supported. The committee system is not broken. It is a different committee system to the one we have had before, and that reflects the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video