Page 3184 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: What about your adviser? Was that okay?
MS FOLLETT: If I may continue, I have again checked on this matter and officers of my department have provided me with some information on a State by State comparison of travel by Ministers and their staff, in particular to the ALP National Conference in Hobart. I would like to advise members of the result of that inquiry.
The costs incurred by the Queensland Premier and Ministers and staff were all covered at public expense. In Victoria, costs were covered at public expense. In Western Australia, costs were covered at public expense. As to Tasmania, the conference was in Tasmania on this occasion; but as a general policy their costs would also have been covered at public expense. In relation to the South Australian Premier, the costs for Mr Bannon were covered by national and State Labor Party funds. That is because Mr Bannon was the President of the ALP at the time of that National Conference. In the case of South Australian Ministers and their staff, the costs were covered at public expense.
My inquiries also extended to non-Labor States. Members might be interested to know that New South Wales has a policy that costs of attendance at political party meetings by Ministers and staff are covered at public expense. In the case of the Northern Territory, the costs are similarly covered at public expense. In relation to the recent National Party conference in Alice Springs, I believe that all Northern Territory Ministers attended that conference at public expense. So, this practice is in no way unusual; nor is it confined to Labor States.
I make the further point that the travel by Mr Berry and me prior to the change of government had been approved by the Administration and Procedures Committee as private study travel by members. So, any question of our coming into government being the reason for this travel being undertaken at public expense is quite spurious. It was always going to be, to some extent - to a major extent - covered at public expense. I fail to see what Mr Kaine regards as improper in that.
The fact also is that, as we were in government, significant government business was conducted. Mr Kaine, I know, does not want to know about that; but it is the fact that I met with Mr Hawke, with the then new Treasurer, Mr Kerin, with Mr Beazley and with Mrs Kirner on matters related to the ACT. In all of those matters I was at great pains to press the claims and the needs of the ACT. I also met with some private sector representatives, and again my aim was to press the claims of the ACT and the benefits for people doing business in the ACT. Since that time one of those groups has spent a day in Canberra, with the possible view of expanding their business significantly into the ACT. That means jobs for Canberra people and it means an input into the Canberra economy, all of which, I think, is an excellent form of government business.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .