Page 1761 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government takes the question of accountability very seriously”, and that is a direct quote—there has been no evident improvement, no effort by the government to be more open or accountable, and no effort to live up to the principle which should be the basis of all governments.
Indeed, in the period since the Assembly last sat, we have gone through perhaps the most extensive period of in-depth questioning the government faces under the ACT system—the estimates process. The government’s performance during estimates was an embarrassment to it and a reflection of the arrogance with which government members approach their custodianship of the territory. I do not believe that performance littered with ministerial obstinacy, refusal to answer questions, filibustering on simple questions and delaying answers to questions on notice reflects a government that takes the question of accountability very seriously. Nor is a government that has forced the opposition to introduce legislation to make compulsory the tabling of quarterly reports—previously done by convention—a flagship of openness.
I will provide a couple of examples from the last few weeks that reflect the government’s approach and lack of commitment to openness. This morning, my colleague Mr Stefaniak touched on some examples from the estimates process; I will provide a few others. Firstly, in relation to Albert Hall, this is an issue of significant concern amongst the community. The Albert Hall is a vital asset; people need to know the government’s plans for the hall and whether or not they will protect the community’s access to the facility. The government is well aware of the amount of public concern that exists about this issue. The issue has received significant coverage in the media, and public meetings have been well attended. The Chief Minister spoke about Albert Hall during estimates without providing any solid indication of his government’s plans for this vital community asset.
After the Chief Minister’s performance during estimates, I placed a question on notice to get further information on both the background of the current situation and the government’s intentions. The government’s response—remember that this is a government that, in the Chief Minister’s own words, places great emphasis on accountability—was to answer just four of 20 questions placed. The excuse for not answering others was that they concerned matters still under consideration, material which is commercial in confidence or matters that should be taken up with other bodies.
If you look at the substance of the questions, this excuse does not stack up. Mr Hargreaves, in this instance, refused to answer questions about the previous use of the hall. He even refused to expand on a statement that his own Chief Minister had made during the estimates process. The uncooperative approach was repeated throughout the estimates process.
Another issue, just as important, is the presentation of this year’s budget. The budget is the most important document produced by a government. It needs to be presented clearly and should allow for comparison with performance in previous years. Unfortunately—but not unexpectedly for this government—there are numerous examples of the presentation of this year’s budget being changed to make comparison with prior use difficult. I will provide just a few examples.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .