Page 1244 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The communique about the agreement is about the agreement between the government and the Greens. It goes on to say in paragraph 2:
The Government and the Greens have today confirmed …
The government confirmed. They can confirm what is happening in the agreement but we cannot ask about it. What are you afraid of? Why is it that when there is scrutiny of this agreement it is shut down by you, Mr Speaker, a member of the Greens party?
Let us read the actions out of the 30 June 2009 communique:
Actions implemented in full since the last progress meeting … include:
• Funding appropriated for the reestablishment of the inner south library service;
Funding, a role of the Treasurer—
• Funding for additional resources for the Forensic Mental Health team—
funding, comes from Treasury—
• Funding for a free legal service …
Again, that is the job of the Treasurer and it is appropriate to ask her about it. The second communique of 24 November 2009 again talks about the ACT Labor government and the ACT Greens “today met to report formally on progress”. “The government”. So how is it you can have an agreement that delivers a government, but we cannot scrutinise it? Mr Speaker, you are wrong. What you are doing today is proving that you are, in fact, partisan, proving that you do play a political role and, if you let this stand, you prove that you cannot be independent Speaker, hold portfolios for a party and serve the people of the ACT as is appropriate.
Mr Speaker, again, the outlining of what had been achieved in that following six-month period looks at things that have cost the taxpayers money. When you go to 16 February—I note that the communiques get smaller and smaller as they achieve less and less—it talks about agreement between the ACT Labor government and the ACT Greens. We are within our rights to ask a government questions about what it is doing and, if it happens to be because it is in the ALP-Greens agreement, that is irrespective; we have a right to scrutinise the government. We will scrutinise the government.
Again, the outcomes in that document cost the taxpayers money. So the problem for your ruling, Mr Speaker, is that it is inaccurate. When you go to House of Representatives Practice on page 539, it talks about arrangements between parties—for example, coalition agreements on ministerial appointments. It talks about arrangements. Our whip has an arrangement with the other whips that has been agreed to. It is an arrangement. We have an arrangement that on private members’ day we will sit to 9.30. That is not something that should be scrutinised in the parliament. We cannot ask the opposition whip, we cannot ask the Greens’ whip—they cannot ask our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video