Page 860 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have been greeted with a panicked response: “I don’t know; I’m not briefed. You’re smearing people’s names.” How outrageous that these things are revealed in the media. This government has been asked to explain by the only newspaper in the town. Whether you like that paper or not is irrelevant. The government has been asked serious questions. They have given cursory or dismissive answers. Then the opposition, in fulfilment of its duty here, not unreasonably says, “Where are the answers?” We find—three months later—that panic breaks out. No-one really knows. We are then told how outrageous it is that we raised these questions. I find quite extraordinary this nearly paranoid approach to anyone who dares question. It is unique to the style of this particular government and this Chief Minister.
I want to make it very clear that we are not in the business of looking to attack individuals within the public service. But we do want to be sure that we do not have a culture of unquestioned spending and an absence of accountability. There are questions that remain unanswered that were pursued by my colleagues yesterday. They said, “What are the amounts spent on conferences and so forth?” Mr Stefaniak raised various issues. We are not talking about $100 here or there; some of these matters involve tens of thousands of dollars. These are not unreasonable questions to ask.
This territory is effectively a $3 billion dollar corporation. Government agencies ought to be able to say, “Well, we have spent $1 million on overseas travel” or “We have spent $500,000 on conferences; it was for this purpose and it delivered this benefit.” We know that things have to be done in government—we are not silly; this party has been in government for a good part of the period of self government—but we do accept the fact that there is an expectation that we should be able to produce the answers within a reasonable time frame when they are raised by the media or by this Assembly. I do not think that offence should be taken every time somebody in this place takes their duty seriously enough to ask questions.
Mr Speaker, in relation to the travel example I gave, it is significant that you are comfortable putting more information out there; you obviously hold the view that you, as the Speaker who presides over the administration of this place, want to ensure that the expenditure of public funds here can be comfortably scrutinised and can be defended. If people have concerns about the travel movements of MLAs, you have the answers and it is all there in the public record. Why can’t that cultural attitude apply to the territory government? Why is it that questions in relation to expenditure are always treated as a personal attack?
There is a fundamental difference between my party and those opposite. I believe, and believe strongly, that the role of government is to facilitate an environment that allows individuals the chance to flourish. Governments should not be self-propagating; they exist to serve the people. Few of the public would believe that this service requires unfettered expenditure of public money. As I have said in this place before, the people that are best qualified to spend money are those who earn the money, not the government.
Mr Stefaniak’s motion calls on the ACT government to ensure that good governance principles are a priority. That is what we are asking for; it is all about governance this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .