He said that the shadow scrutiny panels had been set up as a ‘critical friend’ to review policy and legislation and to suggest possible changes.
But the Policy and Resources president said that the panels were increasingly taking up the role of political opposition.
‘The States agreed to set scrutiny up on the basis that it would be a critical friend, not an opposition.
I think we have got to be very, very careful that we are moving towards that,’ said Senator Walker.
‘If they become the opposition, they will wreck scrutiny.’ His comments came during the latest meeting of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, which he and Senators Terry Le Sueur and Philip Ozouf attended to discuss scrutiny arrangements for the Budget system.
Senator Walker said that the role of scrutiny was not to propose alternative policies but to comment on policies being formulated.
‘States Members have two options.
They can either bring amendments or vote it down.
That is where States Members still have the absolute power to adopt or amend any proposition coming from any source.
‘There is a big difference between that and scrutiny panels putting forward their own proposals and their own amendments.
That is for States Members acting as non-executive members.
Scrutiny should cut across party lines,’ Senator Walker pointed out.
He accepted that States Members came to scrutiny with their own political views, but said that they had to approach the role in an objective way.
‘They have to put their views aside when acting as scrutiny members,’ he said.
‘They are absolutely entitled to their views, but one would expect them to follow them in debates or by lodging amendments.
As part of scrutiny they are not there to pursue their own ideologies.
They are there to give comment based on evidence.’
