Page 2412 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The matter of a fatal traffic accident at Tharwa was raised at estimates committee on 26 June. The issue of road signage was raised, and there was some question over whether additional signage had been needed in this area for some time. Unfortunately, we did not get to hear much of an answer to this question, because the issue degenerated into a rather nasty affair. Now, I do not intend to get into all of this; it has been canvassed to some extent in recent days since it has already been raised in the context of a motion to the privileges committee. I can only go on what I have read in the transcript; I was not present at that particular hearing.
Nonetheless, it is certainly a shame that the committee was unable to hear a substantial answer on this line of questioning, as road signage is clearly an important issue, especially where there has been a consequential fatality. It is not clear whether the lack of signage was the cause of the accident, as the accident was still being investigated by the police. Nonetheless, this is the kind of issue that people, and certainly the members of the Assembly, believe deserves the full attention of the committee and the minister. As it did not get this attention, the people of the ACT were unable to hear what exactly is being done and whether anything needs to be done sooner. The people of the ACT were not privy to the actions and thoughts of the minister on this issue, and that is a shame and a disappointment.
Another issue that I have addressed in other contexts has been the absence of transparency in the estimates process over the failure to answer questions on the Albert Hall. The government seems to be very closed about the whole process of its dealings with the Albert Hall. As I highlighted when discussing the executive generally, the minister was asked some 20 questions on notice about the state of the hall and its future in the estimates committee process—not an unreasonable thing to expect. But it still took a month to get a response to these questions with answers to only four of those.
It has been claimed that the unanswered questions concern matters still under consideration, material which is commercial-in-confidence or matters that should be taken up with other bodies. As I stated when discussing the line item for the executive, this is clearly not the case. I do not accept the view that all this is commercial-in-confidence when it comes to such basic issues as previous community use and the availability of records of past use. I think it was unreasonable to not clarify the issue of augmenting funding, and I do not accept the defence that was provided—“Oh well, it’s not up to one minister to explain what the Chief Minister had in mind”—given that the minister concerned does have responsibility. In defence of Mr Hargreaves, I suspect that he may well have been operating at the behest of his Chief Minister, who has control over heritage, but, whoever is to blame, it is unacceptable that the public is not able to see answers to these simple and reasonable questions.
There are other areas too where answers were lacking. In answer to a question on notice from Mr Pratt, who asked what funds have been allocated to future clean energy mass transport options, the minister simply stated that Mr Pratt had failed to define clean energy and then gave a vague answer, saying that ACTION uses a mix of energy sources. Okay, let us spell out what the energy sources are, which are the cleaner ones and how much funding they get. Although Mr Pratt did not specifically define clean energy for the minister, I would have still thought the minister could have explained his understanding of those terms.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .