Page 2161 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
enough talent to draw from.” When you look at the performance of the ministers you too would probably reach the view that there is a serious talent issue. But I am not sure that expanding this place will solve his problems. People have not performed; he has had to carry the responsibility. As a consequence, matters slide down the priority scale. This government is increasingly relying on one person to make more and more decisions.
Whilst there have been a number of ministerial failures over this financial year—and they have been discussed at length in this Assembly and debated through the media—I would like to concentrate here on the estimates process itself and the failure of the various ministers to properly answer questions asked of them.
This is an important issue. As the major vehicle for scrutiny of the budget, the estimates process is an important test of the transparency of the government. The government’s conduct in answering questions at estimates shows the public whether it is serious about allowing scrutiny of its decisions. Estimates committee hearings in the ACT have been controversial in recent years—I have not been on them for the last two so I cannot claim any credit—with considerable problems from ministers who have made less than a full effort to assist the committee.
This year’s estimates committee hearings have seen a continuation of the failure of ministers to properly answer questions. This makes it very difficult for this Assembly to fulfil its duty to the people of Canberra in applying an appropriate level of spirit into the budget process.
I highlight Mr Hargreaves’s dealing with the questions I raised on Albert Hall. He has been conspicuous in his reticence to provide accountability to the Assembly. Mr Hargreaves received some 20 questions on notice from me about the Albert Hall in estimates committee hearings. These questions are supposed to be answered within five days. Instead, the minister took around a month to return his answer, which included an inexplicable refusal to answer some 16 of the 20 questions.
Mr Hargreaves refused to answer these 16 questions, claiming that they concern matters still under consideration, material which is commercial-in-confidence, or matters that should be taken up with other bodies. Among the questions which Mr Hargreaves refused to answer were questions about the previous community use of the hall and the availability of records of past use. He even refused to answer a question that asked what the Chief Minister meant by a previous reference to “augmented funding”.
The people of the ACT would be surprised to learn that the meaning of ambiguous ministerial statements is a commercial-in-confidence matter. It is totally unacceptable that these questions were not answered. The mere fact that issues surrounding the hall are still under consideration is no bar to answering questions about past use or about what ministers previously meant when they spoke on the issue.
This is a demonstration of a lack of transparency in the ACT government’s decision making on this matter and their disregard for members’ questions on the issue. This issue concerns quite a large number of people within my electorate and one which, not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .