Page 1243 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
questions about the implications of that funding because as Treasurer her number one role is the disbursement of the funds through the budget that we discuss in this place and which we monitor on so many grounds.
You have just said, in regard to Mr Doszpot’s question, “Based on past practice, I’m going to do this.” Well, past practice in this place has been to let questions about the Greens-Labor agreement be asked. And they have been asked by Mr Coe:
My question is to the Treasurer, and it relates to the Greens-Labor agreement. Treasurer, one of the agreed policy points of the agreement is to:
Adopt a goal of 10 per cent public housing …
When it was asked in 2009, it was in order. And Mr Seselja, also in April 2009, asked:
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, on page 14 of the parliamentary agreement between ACT Labor and the ACT Greens your government has agreed to:
Provide adequate funds to ensure that all primary school students have access to swimming and water survival skills by July 2009.
So the question for you, Speaker, is: what changed? These questions used to be in order. These questions used to be allowed in this place. But, apparently, when the scrutiny ramps up, the questions are out of order.
The other point about this agreement, this parliamentary agreement, is that it underpins the government. It is the basis on which this government is formed—it is a result of that agreement: “We’ll vote for you, you’ll give us some outcomes which you’ll fund,” and the outcomes cost the taxpayer money. And it is more than appropriate in this place for the opposition, for the Greens—for anyone—to ask the Treasurer questions about the expenditure of government money. That is what Mr Seselja’s question last week was asking. It was asking: how much will this cost? It is therefore valid to ask these questions and therefore your ruling is incorrect.
Mr Speaker, both the ALP and the Greens’ websites have copies of the agreement on it. Both copies cite the signature of the Deputy Chief Minister. Mr Stanhope appears on these documents as the head of the ALP, as is his wont. But, for reasons unknown, the deputy chief actually appears as a minister—Deputy Chief Minister Katy Gallagher—and it is our job to scrutinise the Deputy Chief Minister on what she does in that role. That is the purpose of the opposition. If the purpose of your ruling is to shut down that scrutiny then you will fail. And I would ask you to reconsider and make sure that you change what you have written.
We go to the communiques that have been released by the Greens and the Labor Party. The communique dated 30 June 2009 and headed “Second joint meeting between the ACT Labor Government and the ACT Greens” states:
The ACT Labor Government and the ACT Greens …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video