Page 2220 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
electors of the ACT, then the Chief Minister should step in. But in many ways he simply follows the example of the Chief Minister, who also ignores his own ministerial code of conduct. We got down to a ridiculous tightening of scrutiny. There was a tactic, a really good tactic—full points to whoever came up with it—and questioners were asked, “What page is it in the budget papers?”
There are things that Mr Stanhope talks about all the time as Chief Minister—as he should and as he is entitled to—that are not on a single page in the budget. Does that mean he should stop talking about them? Of course he should not. Does that mean we should stop asking questions about them? No, of course it does not. It is our duty and our obligation to ask questions.
It is a complete furphy to say that something is out, that it is not an appropriate area for questioning in the estimates because it is not mentioned in budget paper No 3 or No 4. The classic example was when the Chief Minister said, “Mr Chairman, could you actually refer me to the page in the budget papers that we are discussing at the moment?” As he often says in this place, the Chief Minister, as Treasurer, is there to put the context. He says, “Let me give you the context.” Context suits him. It is an excuse for him when it is to his purpose, but when he is asked questions about what he is up to, what he is doing, and the money that pays for him that comes from part 1.2 of the budget, he just refuses to answer.
We had an appalling example of this when we wanted to ask the Chief Minister about his allegations that the Prime Minister is racist. I notice that the Prime Minister is in the Northern Territory today, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, and one committee got a standing ovation. The people there said, “At last people are acting. People are stepping in to help.” The Prime Minister was welcomed with large rounds of applause. But what did Mr Stanhope say when we talked about this? He said, “I am extremely busy, Mr Chair. If there are no further questions, I would like to thank the committee for its attention today.” The Chief Minister thanked the committee for its attention, knowing full and well there were questions that he simply refused to answer.
Chief Minister, if you are not going to abide by your own code of ministerial conduct, just rescind it. It would make life so much easier for everybody else. We would know that the charade that we go through so often with your government is exactly that—a charade tailored to meet your needs.
The annual budget deals with current revenue and spending proposals. It deals with revenue and spending outcomes for the previous year, particularly the immediate prior year because they are listed in those papers, and revenue and spending estimates for succeeding years. It is a broad document that has a specific focus on one particular year. The annual budget deals with all the activities of a government, and clearly there can be questioning about any matters that relate to the activity by the ACT government or its ministers.
We need to debunk—and Mr Mulcahy has done some serious work on this—this proposition that the 2007 budget gained the benefit of tough decisions made in the 2006 budget. That is absolute garbage. There was no justification. We hear from the Chief Minister the constant line “I have made tough decisions”. In 1992, when
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .