Page 2990 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on notice is, "That involves the budget, so I cannot tell you". That approach, Mr Speaker, is either incredibly clever or incredibly stupid. It is incredibly clever because, if given in parliamentary history, it would mean that no questions would ever elicit information from members of government.
Going back in history federally, some major scandals affecting both sides could have easily been answered by, "Sorry, cannot answer; it is a budgetary matter". The cost of VIP aircraft almost brought down the Gorton Government. The answer could have been, "Sorry, budgetary figure, involves a cost to defence". The public scandal about loans from overseas in the period of the Whitlam Government could have been answered, "Sorry, budgetary question, cannot answer it". Mr Humphries has dreamed up the ultimate answer to avoid any scrutiny of the ministry - "Sorry, it is a budgetary question".
Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is a motion about increasing the size of the ministry, but Mr Connolly is talking about matters raised earlier today concerning the answering of questions. I fail to see the connection. I ask that he be made to be relevant.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Humphries. Please proceed, Mr Connolly.
MR CONNOLLY: We have four Ministers who will not answer questions. Having six will achieve no additional benefit. I am sure the other two Ministers will adopt the same strange approach of ministerial irresponsibility.
Mr Speaker, this attempt to increase the ministry comes at a time when the Government is lecturing the community on school closures. I say "lecturing", because it is not explaining; it is not reasoning; it is not putting its case. It is lecturing the community about the need for restraint. It is lecturing the community about difficulties with resources. But now it wants two more Ministers. How extraordinary!
How can its members honestly go to the community of Canberra and say, "This is what we are doing - shutting your schools and increasing the ministry"? It is an absolutely extraordinary approach for this Government to take.
During the period of the first Follett Government - I say "the first Follett Government" because there will be many, many more, starting from February 1992 - we had four Ministers who were able efficiently and effectively to conduct the public business of this Territory.
This ministry, however, claims that it is unable to cope. On that point we would agree. You have demonstrated beyond all doubt that you are unable to cope. You do not take decisions or you constantly reverse your decisions. A
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .