Page 1129 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some very valuable input from people on the front line. To me it shows that Mr Stanhope places a level of trust in the business community and the union movement, but he cannot trust the community sector. I ask him to reflect on that.
When did Mr Stanhope ever say that this information would be confidential? The terms of reference seem to be like shifting sand. There was reference to “budget” or “budgetary”, but the review was never linked, as it is being so firmly linked now, to “the budget process”. Of course, we are now rolling into the budget process and the government is saying that the review process is about the budget.
Does Mr Stanhope not realise that he is dealing with other people’s money? It is the taxpayers’ money and they have the right to know what has happened to their money. It is taxpayers’ money that pays for the functional review. I have often heard Mr Stanhope talk about money and what he is doing with the money. I wonder if he thinks that the taxpayers’ money is actually his money to spend, spend, spend. None of us in this place can say, “I am funding this.” It is the ACT taxpayers’ money. We are just entrusted with the business of administering that money. It is not our money. In question time yesterday, Mr Stanhope said:
As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to call on Mr Costello or Mr Smith to provide any further briefings. They have given detailed background briefings, in terms of context and issues, to business and they have similarly provided briefings to unions.
The word around the traps, and I think Mr Stanhope alluded to this himself today, is that there are conflicting reports about what was or what was not said. That is exactly it. The left does not know seem to know what the right is doing. Some people are being told some things and some people are being told nothing at all. It is called selective leaking. Maybe that is a better way of putting all of this. The government says, “We will selectively leak bits of information to certain people about what we want them to know. We will keep them separate from the unions. We will keep them separate from the community. Let’s not be open and accountable.” This morning Mr Stanhope said that he was going to be the one to set the standard. Well, Mr Stanhope is hoist on his own petard. He is not standing by his undertaking. He should be held accountable for slamming the former Liberal government. He is not living up to his own words. Again, to quote Stephen Bartos:
This review is not some minor consultancy—it is vitally important to the future of the ACT.
So what do we do? We exclude a major part of the community. The terms of reference include the word “community”. The article continues:
… the Chief Minister indicated … ‘Every area of government expenditure in the ACT would be put under the microscope over the coming months, as part of a broad-ranging, functional review of government structures and programs. It is time to take stock, to get an objective analysis of whether resources are flowing smoothly to areas of highest priority and greatest—
wait for it—
community need.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .