Page 2167 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is a very sensible recommendation—a reasonable one, one would think. No, it is dismissed out of sight again by this government. The arrogant and unaccountable refusal to answer questions is also against the spirit of a parliamentary democracy. It is all the more unconscionable when it is applied to the budget, because, as I said, the budget sets out the functions and the programs of the government of the day.
The community, which surely is what we are all here for, has every right to know how its taxpayer dollar is being spent. We as the opposition—and Dr Foskey on the crossbench—have a duty to act as a sentry for the community. We are charged with the scrutinising activities of the government. We seek to make the government accountable—to account adequately and properly—for its activities.
But how often do we get slipshod and offhand responses from this government when members of the executive simply refuse to answer? Often its line items tend to be vague grab bags. The government can get away with revealing very little about its intentions. One of the issues canvassed during the estimates committee was the statue of Al Grassby. It caused national uproar at the time as well as a local outcry, amongst other things, because it was seen as a waste of money when the government was putting up taxes and charges on everyone in the community, regardless of their capacity to pay.
It should be quite straightforward. Any matter that falls within the purview of a department or agency is grist to the mill in the budget estimates process. But that did not occur. This government has a long track record of shutting up anyone who criticises them.
We saw that again today in relation to Four Corners on Monday. This story related to some incidents in the hospital being investigated by the health complaints commissioner. Fifteen people treated by a certain doctor spanned a number of governments: the Follett government, the Carnell government and this one. This government received a report in early 2003 but suppressed the findings for several months.
We are not talking about an eccentric departure from form; there is a consistency. As I said earlier, this government came to power in the ACT promising to be consultative. They still try to sell themselves as being about the community. What they did not tell the community was that they subscribe to a centralised, father-knows-best type of government, which pays lip-service only to the notion of consulting. We have seen that in relation to the school closures. There was some debate in relation to that as a follow-up in the estimates committee—some 23 down from 39 initially. In that case there was consultation after the event. We are starting to see the effects of that particular ill-advised decision.
We saw the government’s usual secrecy and refusal to have its decisions scrutinised when it refused to expose to the light of day the functional review of government services, even though it led directly to the closure of schools and the cutting back of a wide range of community services. This budget does not alter this; it just builds on it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .