Page 1254 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
advice from the Clerk on the width of the debate. I have done that and I am taking this opportunity in a break in the debate to make that observation. Mr Hanson, you are free to continue.
MR HANSON: I am a little confused—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you are free to continue.
MR HANSON: Thank you. The point I am making, which I think you have not ruled on, although it was the point of order—
MR SPEAKER: I have given you the freedom to continue, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: The point is that we have 16 press releases from government ministers all talking about the expenditure of millions of dollars of ACT taxpayers’ money, saying, in this case—this is from Mr Corbell—“This initiative fulfils commitments made through the Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement.” There is one here from Mr Stanhope: “Millions and millions of dollars—16.3 million, six million, three million. Several of these initiatives fulfil commitments made in the Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement.” From the health minister: “These mental initiatives also fulfil a number of commitments made through the Greens-Labor agreement, 8.4 million, 14.5 million, 19 million.” And so on and so on.
How can anyone say that the Greens parliamentary agreement—which is directing and informing government ministers on expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and which is then put out in press releases under ministerial headings on the ACT government website—is something that we as the opposition are unable to question? I think that is absolutely disgraceful and it goes to covering up scrutiny of the government. I can see no other plausible explanation.
Any rational observer of this place would want to question why we as the opposition are no longer able to understand and comment on something that they put out in press releases for public dissemination. This is why we are doing it—the Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement. But, no, not in this place of scrutiny; no, the opposition is not allowed to ask any questions on it: but we will put out as many press releases as we want on it because it suits the Greens and it suits Labor. And it suits you, Mr Speaker, to sit there and rule on something that benefits you as a parliamentarian of the Greens party, which is where your motivation is coming from.
I go to that point because, before you started getting under pressure as the Speaker, until Mr Hargreaves started discussing this as an issue and started making speeches, before we started having some questions raised about your independence as Speaker and you were under pressure, it was very different last year, in 2009, when you ruled one way. Now we see that these issues have arisen and you are ruling another way. Why is that? Maybe you are getting a little bit too comfortable in that chair. Maybe Rattenbury the radical, who wanted independence, who wanted scrutiny of the government, who wanted third-party insurance—
Members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video