Page 1763 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not know which set of scenarios this government is basing its budgets on, but the kindest interpretation would be that it took an extremely pessimistic view on revenue against what turned out to be a remarkably high scenario. That would be the kindest interpretation. The media and others have taken a much less sympathetic interpretation, and that sentiment is fairly widely held in the ACT community.
People are angry. People are angry over the fact that they are hurt by charges. I know that Mr Stanhope says, “Oh, well, what do you care about WPI? It is a few dollars here and there.” But a couple of weeks ago—it was on the Friday at the end of the school holidays, whatever date that was—I heard Mr Stanhope on talkback; someone called in and said that their pension had not been adjusted at all. It is hard for people who are earning over $200,000 to properly relate to that, although I would have thought that Mr Stanhope has had enough experience of life to appreciate it. One has to understand that, for people living on very small incomes, changes imposed by governments are not as insignificant as they might be perceived to be by members in this place or people who are on six-figure incomes.
I am troubled by the basis of it. If there was a lot more transparency, openness and accountability, there might be more willingness to accept massive errors in forecasting. I do not accept that the explanations provided relating to GST and population change come even close to explaining the outcome of the revised budget figures. They all point to the deeper concerns I have with the way that the territory is run.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Environment, Water and Climate Change, Minister for the Arts) (4.58): I am very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance today. My government has a proud record of openness and accountability, and I am very happy to discuss it at any time. It is ironic to see the Liberal Party in this place move a motion around accountability and transparency.
We all recall that just a couple of years ago the opposition criticised the government for being too consultative—for consulting too much—and actually called on us in this place to have a little less conversation. Clearly the aversion to consultation, openness and accountability reflects the opposition’s record when it was in government. That was not so long ago that we, the people of Canberra, have forgotten about this Liberal Party’s position in government in relation to transparency and accountability. For a start, we all have on our shelves a full set of the Auditor-General’s reports on the Bruce Stadium redevelopment fiasco—the 12 reports of the Auditor-General in relation to the Bruce Stadium fiasco.
What did the auditor find? That the redevelopment did not represent value for money; that the decision to redevelop the Bruce Stadium was not based on relevant, accurate and complete information; that the management of the financing was not effective; that the financial management model was not reliable; that the actual costs of the redevelopment were not contained; that the negotiation for the stadium hiring agreements did not and would not contribute to commercial viability of the stadium’s operations as claimed; and that the governance and management arrangements in place, such as they were, were not effective.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .