Page 1764 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Most damningly, the Auditor-General went on to find that the “payments made for the redevelopment in excess of the amounts appropriated were not lawful”—“were not lawful”. It is stunning that the party that had its actions found by the Auditor-General to be not lawful stands here today and accuses this government of not being accountable or transparent.
As we all know, there is a range of other examples. I am sure that members of the opposition have all the reports on their shelves for ready reference to remind them of their history and just how bad they were in government. Of course, the Fujitsu deal raised some very interesting questions about accountability and financial management. Then there was the secret deal in relation to Kinlyside, which raised some very interesting questions and issues around accountability and transparency—issues that, to some extent, had never been revealed because at the time the then government refused every entreaty, request or motion to reveal the details of the secret deal in relation to Kinlyside. They remain buried to this day; those details have never seen the light of day.
Like most of us in the community—I am a long-time Canberran who pays close attention to things—I do not remember a whole lot of discussion about the futsal slab, another process that was far from accountable. All we know about the futsal slab is that it was “Now you see it; you now you don’t”. One day it was not there; the next day it was. Of course, it is still there and it still has not been used.
In contrast, this government has acted openly, with appropriate levels of accountability and reasonable levels of accountability at all times. The 2006-07 budget—which has been much talked about, particularly in the context of the strategic and functional review—revealed very high levels of accountability.
As I have previously indicated and as every minister in this place has always indicated—and it is the position that every minister has always put, including people who were privileged to be ministers in a Liberal government—reports to cabinet attract a certain status and level of protection. To that extent, there is nothing different or unique about the strategic and functional review. As a cabinet document prepared specifically for cabinet, it attracts those same protections. In relation to cabinet in confidence documents, every minister who has stood in this place since the time of self-government has made the same claim and sought the same protection for cabinet documents for which they had a particular responsibility.
As to the decisions that the government took in relation to last year’s budget and the functional review, there are copious amounts of information available. Even today, members need go only to the Treasury website to refresh their memories as to the level of information that was made available about that particular budget and about the decisions that the government took. There are significant amounts of information—indeed, a heavy load of information: the traditional budget speech, the media releases, dozens of fact sheets, and a supplementary budget paper for the future which dealt specifically with the functional review and its development.
Another issue—the shadow Treasurer touched on this again—is the rather extraordinary criticism that the government is now receiving for daring to deliver a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .