Page 1265 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
be able to ask them questions. If the Greens-Labor agreement has a provision about public housing, we should be able to ask the minister for housing. If the Greens-Labor agreement has a provision about transport, we should be able to ask the minister for transport.
This is an expensive agreement. This is a billion-plus agreement. And we see the sensitivity. We see the sensitivity from Labor and the Greens on this issue. This agreement is something that they do not want to see scrutinised. They would prefer it if it can all be sorted out behind closed doors. If there is any ambiguity in the agreement, we cannot ask questions about that. You cannot ask questions about that in this place. You cannot ask questions in the Assembly about the billions of dollars that are proposed to be spent on public housing under this agreement, about the tens of millions of dollars on public transport. We should be able to ask questions—we should be able to address them—about the Greens-Labor agreement and go to the minister who has responsibility to implement that part of the agreement.
Surely this should be the highest place for scrutiny. This should be the place for the widest possible scrutiny, rather than somewhere where debates are muzzled. The agreements underpin why a party is in government. The Labor Party and the Greens in this Assembly are arguing that we should not be able to ask those questions. We have this agreement which underpins the government and it cost billions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds to cost these policies.
We then have a Greens Speaker who refuses to let us ask legitimate questions about this matter. What is the community to think of that? How does this pass the public test, the punter test? If you were to ask them, “How do you ask questions about the Greens-Labor agreement? The Greens and the Labor Party have an agreement which keeps the Chief Minister in his job. The Greens and the Labor Party have an agreement which potentially will cost taxpayers many hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars. Should you be able to, in the parliament, ask questions about that agreement, ask question about how that money is being spent—
Mr Stanhope: No.
MR SESELJA: The Chief Minister says no, we should not be able to ask about those billions of dollars; you should not be able to ask about those policies; you should not be able to ask whether they are going to meet the terms of that agreement which the Chief Minister has told us today they have adopted as government policy. It is their government’s policy now, and these ministers are responsible for—
Mr Stanhope: A point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes. Stop the clocks.
Mr Stanhope: I did not say that at all. This is another example of the Leader of the Opposition, in the context of this debate, clearly—
MR SPEAKER: What is the point of order, Mr Stanhope?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video