Page 929 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
nothing untoward about those two cash advances. That is the advice that I have received about the two cash advances. They were cash advances taken by the then head of the Chief Minister’s Department—and you know who that is—and they related in the first instance to a trip to China and in the second instance to a trip to the United States of America.
MRS BURKE: Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Chief Minister, why, despite repeated questions from the opposition, are you still unable to assure the people of Canberra that all expenditure, including use of credit cards and cash advances, by the ACT government produces a tangible benefit on their behalf? You have not answered the question yet. What benefit?
MR STANHOPE: In other words, do I believe in motherhood?
Mrs Burke: No, I don’t know if you do or not. What benefit to the taxpayer? It is a simple question.
MR STANHOPE: I will answer this question. Over the last couple of days I have been asked what tangible benefit there has been in relation to this matter. The Deputy Chief Minister answered a question yesterday in relation to tangible benefit. The tangible benefit was in relation to a capacity of officers within the ACT service, however described, to investigate and assess what we regard, believe and hope is world cutting edge technology in relation to the purification of water—a system which, as a result of that trip, our officials were satisfied was appropriate and is now, at this very minute, being installed at Mount Stromlo. Once again, this is part of far-sighted, anticipated planning work by the ACT government and its instrumentalities.
I will not do so, but if you want me to go through every single—
Mrs Burke: Well, it is what the taxpayer deserves.
MR STANHOPE: The taxpayer does not deserve me to waste thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars of resources in pursuing an explanation in relation to every expenditure of public moneys by credit card. Do you want that explanation in relation to every expenditure by perhaps some other funding process that does not involve a credit card or do you just want that explanation in relation to the thousands of transactions—for instance, the thousands of occasions or opportunities in which a credit card, as a matter of convenience, was used to pay, say, for a $15 morning tea meeting—that produced a tangible outcome?
Do you want me to actually achieve or seek a record of every conversation or meeting that was conducted over a cup of coffee, through a working lunch or at a conference? Do you want me to provide something like “Oh well, this official attended this conference at a cost of $1,200, including accommodation and airfares, et cetera; this particular official at this conference learnt this and this and this; and this, of course, provides a tangible benefit in terms of that officer’s understanding and education”? The question is puerile. There is a myriad of reasons why credit cards are utilised. The most significant reason is to pay for airfares, transport and meals whilst travelling. Of all the examples of credit card use, the most significant in terms of quantum and number are, of course, to pay for tickets.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .