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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 638 ..

MR STANHOPE: I did, because the guidelines are so bereft and so inadequate. The review that you criticised specifically involves me asking the Chief Minister's Department to prepare a submission for the Remuneration Tribunal on members' use of cars in order to regularise this issue, in order to determine whether, in those circumstances where a member such as Mrs Dunne asks for special consideration, asks for a car that costs over and above the cost of a standard car, it would be reasonable to ask that member to pay for the privilege of having that extra special at that extra special cost, whether it is reasonable to expect the taxpayers to pick up the additional $300 that they pay to allow members to have the car of their choice.

That is what I have done. I have asked the Remuneration Tribunal to look at that issue to see whether it is fair in some circumstances for members to be asked to contribute some portion or all of that extra component for renting a particular car that suits their particular personal circumstances. Mr Humphries took exception to this review but the review is designed, basically, to ensure that things are fair.

Mr Humphries: I did not take exception to it.

MR STANHOPE: You mentioned it specifically on the Chris Uhlmann show and criticised it as a waste of money. It is not a waste of money. It is potentially designed to save money for the taxpayers and to be fair. I do not know why you are criticising that, but I can understand your being a bit sensitive about it and I can understand Mrs Dunne being a bit sensitive about it. That is why I think it is relevant that I explain the background to and circumstances of the particular review you have chosen to highlight and illustrate in that way on the ABC when you launched this attack on our reviews. That review was designed to save money, and I am sure that at the end of the day it will. But there is another review, the review into staffing-

Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Stanhope has spoken at length about cars, but I would like him to get back to the question at hand, which was about the benefits that accrued from the expenditure at Bungendore on 9 and 10 February.

MR STANHOPE: I am happy to respond to that, Mr Speaker, but before I do I will go to one other review that the opposition has criticised. It has actually given a hit list of reviews that we have illustrated.

Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Order! I think that Mrs Dunne's point of order is valid. I think that you should come to the point of the question.

MR STANHOPE: I will come to the point, but that one will only take one minute, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Chief Minister wants to talk about reviews, he can do so in the adjournment debate or make a ministerial statement, but I have asked a question and-

MR STANHOPE: You asked a question about a review.

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