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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 4 May 2004) . . Page.. 1706 ..

The minister in evidence before the committee said that there had been an offer made by a third party who did not want to keep it as a sporting facility but wanted to do other things. However, the minister neglected to say that there had been an offer made by another third party which wanted to maintain this oval as a sporting facility and not only maintain it exactly how it was meant to be but also pay for its ongoing costs which, anecdotally, have been touted as anywhere from $150,000 to $200,000 a year to maintain it in a pristine condition.

It was interesting to me and my committee why someone made that decision, given that there was an offer in writing and that there had been correspondence between the relevant parties to the effect that they would be happy for this facility to be purchased and maintained the way the minister would like it to be maintained and not changed in the way another third party was interested in maintaining it. Maybe in the minister’s apology he can explain to us who in his office made that decision; why they chose not to save taxpayers’ money and sell the oval to one of the third parties that would have kept it within the bounds of a sporting facility and why the government decided to go into the business of buying sporting ovals at taxpayers’ expense.

It is interesting that the cost of a humidicrib in the ACT, which is something we desperately need for our children, is minimal and yet this minister seeks to waste taxpayers’ money—there are also the ongoing costs of maintaining this unnecessary purchase—when there is clear evidence before this committee that he does not have to do that. That is an unnecessary expense which should not be in this appropriation. [Extension of time granted.] The committee is greatly concerned about that. Despite the reservations of the committee about this appropriation bill they decided to pass it with the omission of the intended but unnecessary $800,000 for the purchase of Phillip Oval. The last recommendation, recommendation 12, states:

Prior to the commencement of any or all Estimates committee hearings, Ministers should remember their responsibilities and obligations in the conduct of hearings, and, if necessary, refresh their knowledge of Standing Orders; and further understand the difference between the Treasurer’s Advance and a supplementary appropriation.

The committee took offence at a letter received from Minister Bill Wood, which has been tabled in this report. Not only did it find the attitude of this letter insulting but it was also another posturing, lecturing letter by a minister who has at times come across as very arrogant during estimates processes, indicating frankly that he does not like being questioned and that he finds this rather boring. The committee did not need to be educated on the difference between a Treasurer’s Advance and an appropriation. It was unnecessary for this minister to write this letter but he chose to do so. Given the attitude of certain ministers and some of their departmental people in this process, it was important to highlight the fact that these ministers need to be re-educated and perhaps undertake a refresher on their responsibility to the estimates process.

When ministers come before this committee process it is their responsibility to be cooperative, truthful and forthcoming with information; to not hinder the process or be arrogant and imply: we are doing this as a favour; we really do not have to be here. Well, they do. It is their responsibility to do the right thing. They have an obligation not only to the Assembly but also to the people of the ACT to be cooperative, forthcoming and

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