Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2180 ..
MR QUINLAN
: This is my free opinion that I give you. Now, where was I? I was talking about the aggregation of policy-making into the Chief Minister's Department.Mr Moore
: And you digressed into us doing things.MR QUINLAN
: Yes, badly. That is the point. What we have now in this Chief Minister's Department is a sort of queen bee mentality where we have lots and lots of public servants. As I was saying, we are starting to see the first dribbles-it will probably become a torrent between now and the next election-of all these bits and pieces of paper that are pictures of Canberra, or assessments of pretty pictures, and all designed to give the impression of a great deal of activity and to paint the government in a good lie. I have not got the numbers with me but, if you add up all of the policy areas across the portfolio plus this huge raft of people in the Chief Minister's Department, we have continued growth, I think even into next year, in the policy areas, many of which boil down to propaganda areas.Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I contend to this house that a considerable amount of this $83.3 million that is spent on a department that runs arts and tourism could probably be better spent in Mr Moore's portfolio to sort out some of the problems, even if it is spent on hiring management to guide you through. I do not think the opposition could possibly endorse the expenditure of $83.3 million on the Chief Minister's own little coterie.
MS CARNELL
(Chief Minister) (5.15): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, if it was $3 million those opposite would not agree. If it was $103 million they would not agree. It does not matter what it is. It does not matter what the line says-they have opposed it every single year, just as they have opposed every single other line of the budget every year. So to assume that this has got anything to do with a policy area in the Chief Minister's Department, or Bruce Stadium, or anything else, is patently ridiculous because last year when they opposed this line we did not have a policy area in CMD. They just opposed it for some other reason. This year it is supposedly for this reason, and next year, and the year after, and the year after, it will be for some other ethereal reasons. While those opposite continue to oppose for opposition's sake and do not accept, at least in action, that the elected government in this place does have a right to their budget-although they say that they have voted against it every time-we will end up with the farce of this debate. They will oppose it every time, regardless.With regard to the policy area, every single Chief Minister's Department, Premier's Department, and the Prime Minister's Department in this country has a policy area. Guess what? We were the only ones that did not.
Mr Moore
: And it showed.MS CARNELL
: And it showed. It did show, and what has happened? Having a policy area has meant that we can coordinate difficult policy areas. Mr Moore and I were just talking about a really good example, and that is genetically modified food. That is a difficult policy area. It is an area where there are business interests, agricultural interests, environmental interests, health interests, and legal areas as well, so probably four of my five ministers would be interested. Now, is it sensible to have four separate submissions to cabinet, or is it sensible to have one?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .