Page 2376 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
chair recognised Ms Burch and said, “Have you got a question?” She said, “Yes, I have got that question about therapy.” Then Mr Hargreaves launched into the answer before he had even been asked the question. If we want to question what people were doing on the estimates committee, perhaps Ms Burch should look at herself to start with.
The interesting thing then is the criticism that there is not enough economic analysis in the report. I do not recall Ms Burch bringing forward any economic analysis. I tabled seven pages with probably a dozen recommendations, maybe more, that Ms Burch voted against. She did not want this even resolved. The report is criticised for being light on economic analysis, but she voted against including such analysis in the report.
Mr Seselja: Outrageous.
MR SMYTH: It is outrageous, and it is outrageous to listen to that without the stories being completed. She went on to discuss how Mr Coe had asked questions about OwnPlace, but she stopped short of saying what the Chief Minister did, which was write a letter that was fundamentally not true to seven organisations, alleging things that had occurred, seeking their response.
The Chief Minister was called to task for this. The committee authorised the chair of the committee of estimates—which I do not believe has ever happened before; I beg to be corrected—to write to five building companies and two industry associations to correct the inaccuracies and the mistruths that the Chief Minister had sent them in his letter. Again, Ms Burch stopped short of telling the full story. People can take her at her own efforts, but if she wanted more in this report I do not recall it ever being tabled or proffered for the discussion of the committee.
There is one paragraph; it is listed in key issues. It is on page 4, if it has not been brought by Ms Burch, and it is worth reading. It says:
The Committee discussed … the lack of detail in the Budget papers that made it impossible to clearly identify a plan to achieve the recovery predicted by the ACT Government. This lack of detail was also noted in some community budget submissions.
There it is. There is the key paragraph. There is no detail. It is impossible to make the discussion because there is not the information to be had.
There is a paragraph—139 on page 9 of the report—that discusses the questions on notice. It is interesting that the questions on notice have been such a focus. Mr Stanhope saw them as a fishing expedition, as somehow trivial and absurd—okay, honest, open, accountable government, but if you ask questions you are trivialising the process, it is a political fishing expedition and it borders on the absurd.
The interesting thing is that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the questions we asked on Calvary have been answered—not one. If you want informed, objective discussion about potentially a $100 million purchase of a privately owned asset, you cannot have it because the government did not answer the question. That is one of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .