Page 1767 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

government has done. The fact is that $8.87 million—and let’s not forget that those are just the contracts that we have been able to find publicly—has gone out the door and is footing the bill for mentoring services to the CEO of CIT, all under the watch of this minister and this Labor-Greens government.

It is all good now for the minister to come in and go, “You know what, Ms Lee? Thank you so much for bringing this forward. Yes, we’re really concerned and let’s have an independent examination of them.” The amendment Mr Steel brings on, again, is a total rewrite. I do not know why, because paragraph (1) is pretty similar to what I have written. Paragraph (2) goes on to say, “These are my excuses.” In paragraphs (3) and (4) there is all the vibe about “let’s get the Auditor-General involved”. But there is absolutely no time frame to try and get this done and no certainty about what is going to happen. We know that we do not dictate to the Auditor-General what they can, what they should and what they cannot do. Minister Steel knows this very well. This is a classic example of looking like he is doing something. That is not good enough for the Canberra public. If he is that serious, please explain what has gone on in the last 15 months, since first raising concern about four contracts. What has been going on?

The Canberra community are still in the dark and they deserve answers. There has been $8.87 million of ACT taxpayer funds paid to one contractor, and now we know that the minister already had concerns about this contractor. To come into this place and to be forced to explain, because it has now hit the media, with a pretence of looking like he is trying to do something is too little, too late. There are serious answers that must come to light and it is up to the responsible minister to be held accountable. We will not be supporting the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 15

Noes 7

Mr Barr

Mr Gentleman

Mr Cain

Ms Berry

Ms Orr

Mr Hanson

Mr Braddock

Dr Paterson

Mrs Kikkert

Ms Burch

Mr Pettersson

Ms Lawder

Ms Cheyne

Mr Rattenbury

Ms Lee

Ms Clay

Mr Steel

Mr Milligan

Ms Davidson

Ms Stephen-Smith

Mr Parton

Mr Davis

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video