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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2034 ..

MRS CROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The minister has just responded to the committee’s report. I am commenting on and referring to the report in relation to his response to that committee report. So I think it’s relevant.

The Estimates Committee approved the appropriation, except for the $800,000 that was asked for for the purchase of the lease because it felt that it was an inappropriate and unnecessary taxpayer expense, given that, contrary to what the minister had advised the committee, a party had offered to purchase it but not under the terms and conditions that the minister felt he wanted to preserve the lease. He didn’t say, “There were parties and one of them would like to preserve it the way I’d like it, Mrs Cross, and the other one doesn’t.” We had to find this out by other means. When we asked the minister to provide us with information, we only got part of that information.

That is the reason why, on the $800,000 we felt—and rightly so—that we were misled, which is why we asked the minister to come back to apologise. I think I heard some sort of apology earlier. It was very difficult to hear, with the noise, and the Chief Minister babbling on in the background. But it was very, very difficult to come to any conclusion but that.

If Mr Quinlan doesn’t like the fact that I’m questioning this today because it makes the government look bad, that’s your problem. Our job was to make sure that the money that was asked for in the appropriation was necessary, that it was going to be spent by the time that it was meant to be spent by. We have a role, a duty and a responsibility to answer to the members of this Assembly because we represent the people of Canberra—it is their money—to make sure that the money that the government is asking for is going to be used appropriately and by the time that they say they need it by. That hasn’t always been the case. We have a duty to ensure that we can get as much information as possible in as timely a manner as possible. That hasn’t happened.

The minister referred to the committee’s secretary. I am very concerned that this reference was made, and I just wanted to make sure so that I didn’t misunderstand what the minister said because I don’t want to misrepresent his comments. He said that a member of his staff rang the committee secretary to find out who the third party was. Well, Jesus, wouldn’t you think they’d know!

Mr Corbell: No, that’s not true.

MRS CROSS: No. Why would your office involve the committee secretary and not ring the chair of the committee when, in fact, the committee secretary recommended to the staffer to ring me, but she didn’t but she wanted to involve an administrative person? How inappropriate is that? The committee secretary rang me, very concerned, and said, “I got a call from the planning minister’s office. A staffer in that office was saying, ‘Who’s the third party?’” Well, gee, wouldn’t you think they’d know? It’s almost like you’re trying to involve other people in—how would we call it?—your cover-up? Maybe “cover-up”, do you think? Might be “cover-up”, who knows. But it was totally unnecessary. The committee secretary made it very clear to this staffer that she should ring me, but she did not. I wonder why.

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