Page 226 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
$242 million for climate change initiatives is what matters; $250 million for transport infrastructure is important to the territory. A new women’s and children’s hospital is what matters to the community. The government is more than happy to be accountable for the outcomes it has achieved for the community and for the economy through the decisions we have made.
The question for the Assembly today is that it can focus on the release of a two-year-old review, or we can look ahead to building the territory’s future. I believe the community would prefer the Assembly to focus on building the territory’s future and the future for our coming generations. That remains the position of the government. However, we do acknowledge the agreement we have with the Greens and do acknowledge that the appropriate place and process for this decision to be reviewed is as set out in the amendment moved by Ms Hunter—that is, that the question of the public release of the document be referred to the independent legal arbiter to be created by this Assembly during the February sitting.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (3.53): It is interesting to traverse the ground that we traversed not four months ago when Dr Foskey had the courage to call for this. She had the courage to call for this because she believed the public needed to be informed, because the public, through individuals and groups, had told an organisation like the public accounts committee that they doubted the veracity of the data in the report. The data has never been tested because the data has remained hidden. We have just had the Treasurer say: “Don’t concentrate on the past. Look forward to the future.” The present is based on the reforms of 2006 and the budget, moving forward, is still based on those reforms. If those reforms are based on assumptions that are wrong, we put ourselves in an even more parlous position as we move forward. That is the basis for the release of this document.
The community has a right to know what the assumptions were, what data was used and how it was interpreted. And if it is accurate, the government should not have any problems with releasing it. But the government knows that it is not accurate, because when the budget was released in the flimsy summary, numerous groups said, “That information is not correct.” And that is why this document is important.
Mr Stanhope spoke of honour. He said we need to honour our agreements, but when he was the Leader of the Opposition he promised to be more honest, more open and more accountable. He promised not to hide behind commercial-in-confidence and cabinet-in-confidence. He said, “We will give you information,” and since he got to that chair, he has refused to do so. On the morning of the 2004 election, he said that the people of Canberra had nothing to fear from majority government. When he got that majority, he stopped listening; he knew he could not be held accountable because, as we can all do the maths, nine seats beats eight any time.
But Dr Foskey and the opposition did not stop trying. Those who were not here and do not have the history need to know what we tried to do. There were some motions, there were calls for it, there were requests for it. The public accounts committee, on 19 March this year, wrote to the Chief Minister and said:
The Legislative Assembly Committee on Public Accounts has a broad responsibility to consider any matter pertaining to the public finances of the ACT, including:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .