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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4918 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Cabinet has control of the money and the know-how. Members of the Assembly do the best they can to scrutinise the Executive and the way in which public money is spent; but they are doing it with no power over money Bills, with limited resources and with little access to all the information.

Over the past five years, around Australia - and in Canberra - there has been a sinister new development. Public money is being spent on commercial deals stamped "never to be revealed to the community". This is done behind the smokescreen of commercial-in-confidence. Once this brand is slapped on any government undertaking with business, we are all supposed to shut up and just accept the fact that, however public money is being spent, it is all being done with the community's best interests at heart - "money for jam", to use a phrase. I find this deeply disturbing, Mr Speaker, and completely unacceptable. I am surprised that more people, and particularly the media, do not.

I am still a political novice. I make no secret of the fact that I try to make up for my lack of knowledge by talking to people who do know what they are on about. Perhaps the most interesting conversation I have had was one with an official from the Federal Treasury. He asked me whether I knew why Australia had always been a stable democracy. I thought long and hard about this, Mr Speaker, hoping that I would come up with the right answer, because, as you are well aware, I am just a front-rower.

Mr Moore: I thought that you played on the wing.

MR OSBORNE: I did; but I started the game in the front row. I thought that it was because of our democratic systems. We had adopted and adapted a fair system of government, in which everyone had a say at least once every three years, and we really had good and fair electoral systems. He said that this was important; but it was not the most important thing. He said that the foundation stone of our democracy was section 83 of the Constitution. It may surprise you to learn, Mr Speaker, that I was unfamiliar with section 83 of the Constitution. Happily, it turns out to be short - just one sentence. It says:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.

It was not immediately apparent to me how this relatively obscure section of the Constitution anchored our democracy; but the Treasury official was kind enough to explain. He said that the line ensured that there was transparency in dealing with public money. Public money was clearly accounted for, and only the parliament could draw on the public purse. Countries where people could see politicians and bureaucrats growing fat on their taxes tended to be unstable. Section 83 was meant to guarantee as far as possible in a society that the public could see how their money was being spent. That financial transparency ensured democracy.

Having spent nearly three years paying more attention to politics, I can now see the wisdom of his words. Seeing what is happening around me, I begin to worry about the future, about the kind of democracy my children will inherit, because I believe, Mr Speaker, that our system of democracy is under threat. It is not under attack from

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