Page 760 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
are here for. That is what this government, when in opposition, did when the Liberal Party were in government; that is how it works. For our part, as the opposition we have relied on these reports to provide us with a detailed insight into a significant component of public spending in the territory—$337 million. We need to be the check and balance to ensure that the openness and accountability that the Stanhope government boldly proclaimed it stood for before the 2004 election is fulfilled.
The Stanhope government have a duty to the people of the ACT to restore the provision of these quarterly capital works reports. We hope today, through this debate, that they will sincerely think about that. Otherwise, it looks like you are trying to hide something—definitely. This will enable the community, not just the opposition, to scrutinise the performance of the Stanhope government in this important area of public spending and to hold this government accountable for their performance.
Let us turn now to some matters that involve what are quite small amounts of public funds that we have heard about today. First, let us take a brief trip back 25 years to 1982. Some members and others present today—not me, of course—will remember two ministers in the Fraser government resigning over the importation of a black-and-white television set. John Moore and Michael MacKellar both resigned in 1982, when Mr MacKellar failed to pay customs duty on this television set—a matter involving only a few hundred dollars at most.
In the context of the ACT government, we have become aware of a number of issues in recent times over the use of credit cards by the ACT government. Typically, again these involve quite small amounts of funds. Nevertheless, nothing abstracts from the basic principle of governments remaining accountable for the use of public funds. We are aware, for example, that an ACT government credit card has been used to spend $185 at Strandbags. What benefit did this expenditure provide to the people of Canberra? We are aware that an ACT government credit card has been used to withdraw, as a cash advance, $1,670. Why did an ACT government employee have to get a cash advance? How did this expenditure benefit the people of Canberra? We are aware that an ACT government credit card apparently has been used to fund an ACT government executive dining out almost every week during the 2005-06 financial year. Surely the community has a right to know how it benefited from that. If we keep this open and accountable thing going, then there is nothing to hide, surely. What did they receive from the spending?
In a somewhat different league is the revelation that the ACT government, or specifically the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Mr Hargreaves, agreed that $72,000 of public funds would be spent on a statue of a former minister of the Whitlam government, Al Grassby. My colleagues will perhaps deal in more detail with this extraordinary decision by the Stanhope government on the use of government funds.
So when was the last quarterly report? Let us go back there. It was December 2005! A Treasury spokesperson—of course, unfortunately, we did not hear this from the Treasurer—said in the Canberra Times on 18 April that the reports were neither required by legislation nor useful outside the bureaucracy. Who are they to decide this? The Canberra community have a right to know. They have a right to see the figures.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .