Page 3819 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Dealing with some of the specific expenditures—and I did speak briefly a moment ago abut the Olympic torch relay—there are a number of specific expenditure initiatives that have raised concerns during the estimates process and elsewhere. As I have said, the bill provides for $950,000 of appropriation for this torch relay and, whilst it is noted that the government is currently seeking commonwealth funding for half of this amount, the Assembly is being asked to approve the entire amount prior to any commonwealth assistance and any such assistance is, at best, hopeful rather than certain.
This is a large amount of money for a single event. We are talking about $1 million in expenditure. It is worth saying again and noting that the Chief Minister expressed some surprise at the high cost of this event, and he made that expression of concern known in the estimates process. We are told that this expenditure will put the ACT on display and that there will be benefits from the exposure of our city. I do not doubt that; I am sure there is some advantage. Unfortunately, it is notoriously easy to point to some amorphous benefit without a rigorous assessment of costs versus benefits.
Indeed, we have seen in the Rhodium inquiry, in the recent scandal over excessive sponsorship agreements, the dangers of this vague methodology. That experience should have taught us that vague and speculative qualitative assessments of publicity benefits should simply not be regarded as sufficient cause for the expenditure of large amounts of public money.
Mr Stanhope: The big lesson was the V8 car race, of course—the $14 million the Libs put into the V8 car race.
MR MULCAHY: In terms of other specific expenditures, another item of great concern is the appropriation of $75,000 for Family and Community Day, a public holiday which has been an atrocious experiment.
Mr Stanhope: Feel the power. Remember that?
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR MULCAHY: Mr Speaker, I cannot hear myself. I do not know how you can you hear what is going on.
MR SPEAKER: Come to order.
MR MULCAHY: When I first saw this item of expenditure in the supplementary budget papers to the bill, I must say that I was a little annoyed that the government would be wasting even more money on this ill-considered public holiday. However, what has emerged in the estimates process in the public accounts committee is that this item of expenditure is actually for the Family and Community Day that has already occurred. Yes, that is right; we are being asked to approve an appropriation for money that is already spent!
Is this honestly the level to which parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditure has sunk? A retrospective approval of expenditure that we learn about after the event
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .