Page 2741 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ever, the extraordinary step was taken—and I am told not just in the ACT but probably in the country—where an estimates committee held an in-camera hearing. It really revolves around the minister and his officers being able to answer very basic questions about the territory plan and their failure to do so. So it is quite a record. The EpiCentre matter has been covered very well by Mr Seselja, so there is no need to traverse that ground again.
There is a second matter of concern involving the behaviour of the minister. That is with regard to Dr Harrison and his report. In that case the minister used his position as a minister, and the privilege of the parliament, to say things that, according to Dr Harrison, are blatantly untrue. The extraordinary step was taken of allowing Dr Harrison to have his objections recorded in the Hansard. Just as we see a pattern forming here, we see it repeated in the corrections area. We will get to that later in the evening. I think this throws into doubt much of what the minister says about EpiCentre.
I think members need to be aware of the processes we have and how Mr Corbell is always coming foul of them in the EpiCentre process. One area I want to touch on is the number of staff that actually work in the LDA. There was a recommendation from the committee that the Minister for Planning table in the Assembly a breakdown of employment within the Land Development Agency, breaking it down to full-time, part-time and contractors who work for the LDA. The government’s response was that it was agreed in principle and that the Minister for Planning would table in the Legislative Assembly the breakdown of staff employed within the LDA on the next available sitting day.
That was tabled on Tuesday. Wednesday was the next available sitting day and we did not see the report. We still have not seen it today. I wonder when the minister is going to honour the commitment made by the Chief Minister when he tabled the government’s response to the estimates committee report. It is important that the government honour their commitments. The minister has clearly not done that. In his closing remarks he might be able to tell the Assembly when exactly he will table the breakdown of employees.
The number of people in the LDA has been discussed at several meetings publicly in this city recently. At a Labor Party fundraiser where businesses paid to talk to ministers, Minister Gallagher spoke to the business community. She made statements—I understand quite gleefully—that the staff of the LDA would be halved; that that was a recommendation inside the functional review and was indeed a cabinet budget recommendation.
The Chief Minister took some exception to this when I raised it in the estimates process. He got very hot under the collar. The easy way out of this is to table the recommendations and let us see what is in the functional review. But of course we will not see that, because the whole basis of this budget is flawed. It is flawed because of the functional review upon which it is based. That is why the government is afraid to table the functional review. The story continues that he was able to argue not to have cuts to the LDA by saying, “We will just sell some more land; that will make up the shortfall.”
If that is how we are going to fund the ACT, then we have serious management woes on the government benches at this stage. If you have to make savings, you do not make them by selling something; you only sell it once. If the functional review did suggest
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .