Page 3268 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, there have been a number of overseas trips taken in recent months that could quite fairly be questioned by members of the community as to whether or not the ratepayers of the territory received value for money or a significant benefit as a result of that ministerial travel; or which could be misconstrued because of the lack of probity and the lack of information published in the public arena. We need to be mindful of the expectations of the community.
For example, was it good value and was it appropriate that Minister Gentleman spent over $70,000 on a trip to the US to observe major investments in public transport, including light rail, within months of an election that was seemingly won on the decision to pursue light rail? As was noted by a public transport advocate in the Canberra Times in February this year:
This is a large amount of money to spend given the decision to proceed with stage one of the light rail project had already been made. There wasn’t any likelihood of changes being made to stage one based on the findings of this study tour.
In relation to transparency with regards to ministerial travel, ministerial statements on trips rarely outline detailed itineraries, rarely detail all the individuals or organisations that have been met with or initiatives or projects that have been visited and also seldom outline anyone who has accompanied the minister in that travel, be they staff, public service directorate officials or other members of the community. For example, on recent trips how many public servants or staffers were in attendance, in what capacity did they attend and were they required and necessary to the travel? Do minister keep meeting diaries? Are minutes of meetings taken at every meeting? Much more detail can and, I and the opposition believe, should be provided.
The action point in my motion today calls on the ACT government to make public within three months of return from travel a reconciliation of all expenses incurred and activities undertaken by the minister on behalf of the government as part of ministerial travel, including all expenses for staff, public servants or any other person accompanying a minister during any official travel. This is a reasonable expectation and only a few steps further than what currently is commonplace in this Assembly.
The devil is in the detail. Questions along the lines of: “Why are members of other organisations in attendance and how much of the cost of their travel was borne by the government?” would be useful and welcomed by external observers. These are all details that should be held up for public scrutiny. The lines of propriety and the interpretation of the ministerial code of conduct can be viewed very differently by each minister.
A greater level of detail when representing jurisdictions or private groups in an official capacity is something that has been adopted by other parliaments and other organisations, particularly in the private sector. In the opposition’s view, the details of overseas trips undertaken by members of this place should be transparent enough to pass the scrutiny of the general public, and expenditure and activities undertaken should be in line with what would be expected more broadly in the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video