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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2226 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

your area, Mr Speaker, that expenditure is picked up from the executive budget. Mr Speaker, you are acutely aware of the number of people who visit the ACT and, as such, you would know that this expenditure is not an insignificant amount of the executive budget. So, as well as our staff, as well as the actual on-going costs of running the offices, there are significant other things that are covered out of the executive budget.

MR KAINE (12.09): Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister's response is as usual designed as nothing but a smokescreen. I will quote some figures from the sport and education department vote. I pointed out that some $2.5 million was allocated to this minister for policy advice and services. The Chief Minister mentioned the cost of dealing with questions that are placed on notice, as though somehow that was a significant part of the costs incurred by these departments. I would like to cite a few statistics to put that into perspective.

In the education department there were 472 items of cabinet business. There were answers to 280 possible Assembly questions-that is, the minister was given advice to enable him to answer questions which might have been asked. There were 300 ministerial briefs; 2,800 pieces of ministerial correspondence-this minister signs 2,800 pieces of correspondence a year that are drafted in his department, not in his office; and 400 speeches. The minister uses his policy organisation to write 400 speeches a year. There were 20 questions without notice. What is the significance of the questions without notice in terms of the whole volume of "business" carried out by this policy organisation in the department of education? As usual, the minister's response contained a lot of fluff, smokescreens and mirrors but did not acknowledge the real facts.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (12.11): Mr Speaker, I am sorry but I would have to agree with the Chief Minister that Mr Kaine has misunderstood what has been said.

Mr Kaine: I will get to yours in a minute, if you keep talking.

MR HUMPHRIES: I hope you do, Mr Kaine, because I think that what has been put on the table is entirely defensible.

The Chief Minister did not say that there was a large cost associated with answering questions on notice. She said, "Large costs associated with answering questions in this place." There are questions other than those asked on notice. There are questions asked without notice at question time. That, in fact, consumes a much greater percentage of the resources available to the government than do questions on notice because, within reason, every possible question needs to be covered with some degree of certainty. I have been advised that it costs the ACT taxpayer several hundred thousand dollars a year to provide the large folders which ministers bring down here every day to question time.

Why do we have those advices? The answer is that the people opposite and on the cross-benches get very upset if we cannot answer a question and we do not have the information. If this happens there are oohs and aahs. Members say, "Tut-tut, minister, you cannot answer the question." You cannot make that comment when occasionally the minister does not have the answer and then complain that we are spending several hundred thousand dollars a year ensuring that the information is available to ministers when they come down to the chamber.

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