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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1876 ..

MR SMYTH

Treasurer must have been aware of these trends. It is inconceivable that he would not have been briefed by Treasury. The data presented in the budget on 6 May was already out of date by early June.

He therefore should have provided the most current information on the budget outcome to the committee instead of leaving it with data that was rapidly become irrelevant. This unfortunate episode raises questions about the reliability of the budget data, not only for 2002-03 but also for 2003-04, and the willingness of the Treasurer to keep the Assembly informed.

For example, is the starting point for the 2003-04 budget now different from the one postulated on 6 May, and how are we to know? What is the revised outcome for the 2003-04 year in light of a higher level of economic activity in the ACT, lower interest rates and a more buoyant equities market? The committee cannot reasonably be expected to assess the budget and make judgments for the guidance of the Assembly if it is either not provided with the information or is left out of the data information hotline.

While the estimates report breaks new ground in terms of budget analysis, it also, sadly, forms new lows in terms of government accountability. The committee was treated to the rather unedifying spectacle of two cabinet members refusing to answer reasonable questions put by the committee. First, Mr Wood turned up and said:

... this committee needs to remember that matters of personal responsibility and what happened and when are matters for elsewhere. ...

For this reason, I, with officers from ACT Policing and Emergency Services Bureau, won't be answering any questions relating to the details of the bushfires of January this year.

It is not up to the minister to dictate that he will or won't answer questions about a matter. If there was a genuine need for him not to answer certain questions, there were a number of options available. Public interest immunity offers a general ground on which a witness may seek to avoid answering a question; information that is cabinet-in-confidence or commercial in-confidence may form the basis of such a claim; the sub judice principle that a matter is before the courts and discussion of it in another forum may prejudice the outcome of the court proceedings might also be relied on.

That the minister chose instead to issue a blanket, upfront refusal is symptomatic of either laziness or this government's refusal to be open and accountable. Perhaps it is a combination of both. That is why the committee has recommended that the Assembly consider whether Mr Wood's refusal should be referred to a committee of privilege to see whether he is in contempt of the Assembly's commitment of the Estimates Committee to look into the budget.

This was followed by Mr Corbell who, during consideration of the estimates of the health department, was asked to provide details of hospital waiting lists for the month of April 2003-not an uncommon request in an Estimates Committee. The minister acknowledged that officials had the details being sought by the committee but declined to answer the question. In doing so, the minister stated:

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