Page 3010 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
You cannot have your cake and eat it. You are either open and honest at the election, “all our plans are on the table”, or you are conducting behind-closed-door deals. But you cannot have it both ways. So that goes to the honesty of it.
In terms of openness, the only reason we found out about this whole deal—let us remember this—is that somebody went to the media. Certainly the minister has basically said, “This came out well before we wanted it to.” When were we going to find out about this? We know that she did not actually run it in the budget. No doubt we would have found out—or would we have ever found out? I suppose that we would have needed to go through the books.
What about the accountability? Madam Assistant Speaker Burch, you and I have had brief words on this matter about consultation, a matter that is going to have so much impact on our health system in terms of what it unfolds, in terms of the delivery of the site of Calvary. To not consult, I find inexplicable.
Throughout the estimates process we have heard a litany of problems to do with honesty. We have heard of shonky deals, of no accountability when it comes to the paperwork and the process or running adverts at the hospital. I think that is most inappropriate. We have heard about candidates at the Gungahlin police station opening. We are yet to see the Costello functional review. So much for openness, so much for accountability and so much for honesty! If the government are prepared to back the logic of why they made so many of the decisions that they had in the horror budget of 2006, why not be open and accountable? What are they hiding? Clearly they are hiding something.
What does surprise me is that they have not released cabinet documents. I referred to the election commitments of 2001 when this government said it was going to be open, accountable and honest and said that they would release cabinet papers after six years. I have reviewed the legislation and, indeed, it is 10 years. So the rhetoric does not match reality.
When we do get to a position where this government is being held to account, what happens? We saw this last week with the extraordinary attack on the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General, in real terms, is having her funding cut to the point where, because of this government, she is basically able to do half the work that she did when she started with this government in 2001, when the Auditor-General was auditing back then. It is now going to be halved, based on the current funding projections.
This government then have the temerity, when they receive a valuable report, to threaten to cut her funding further. They order her to look for efficiencies. What a revolting, disgraceful attack on accountability, on openness! It is remarkable. But that is what we expect from this government, because their best form of defence is attack. And it is the only way they know how to do business.
We have had threats of legal action against me repeatedly because I dare to hold a minister to account, because I have dared to question what is happening with the FOI process, and rightly questioned it. We had the wild accusations made of bias
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .