Page 2058 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is this untruth in the fact sheet:
The Stanhope Government is the first since self-government to undertake a comprehensive analysis of government services and structures.
The fact is that the first act of the alliance government was to undertake two such reviews: one of incomes and revenues and one of expenditures. They were both published because the then Chief Minister, Trevor Kaine, wanted the people of the ACT to know what the state of the books was. That is how principled government works.
We knew that the functional review was coming; it had been commissioned. We rather got the impression that the Chief Minister commissioned it and that the Treasurer did not know about the commissioning of it at the time—that Ted Quinlan probably learnt about the commissioning of the functional review by reading about it in the Canberra Times. It went on for some months in relative secrecy—of course, behind closed doors; this is the way things operate. But there was always an expectation that we would see this document. It was only a couple of months before D-day in 2006 that we started to become aware that this document would not become available to the public when it was released.
When parents were opening up the Canberra Times and seeing stories about how their school might close if their enrolment was under 100, they were saying, “Well, show us the reasons why we should do this.” “No, no; we won’t be doing that because that will be part of the functional review and that is a cabinet in-confidence document.” This was a position that evolved over time, obviously because the Stanhope government was uncomfortable about what it was going to do and did not want any really incriminating evidence.
The point here is that the Canberra Liberals believe that the functional review should be made available to the people of the ACT. The people of the ACT pay Jon Stanhope’s wages and they are entitled to know why he and his colleagues made the decisions they did in 2006. That is the thing that we have to remember in this place. It is not our money; it is the money of the people who elect us, and they are entitled to the answers. They are entitled to the information.
Jon Stanhope, the great reformer: he wants to reform everything except that which would make him uncomfortable. Jon Stanhope, who was going to come in here in 2001 and reform access to information in the ACT. He thought that the Carnell government had not treated him well in relation to access to information. But he got more access to information in relation to Bruce Stadium than I did in relation to school closures. Kate Carnell did not issue conclusive certificates over information in relation to Bruce Stadium. There were no conclusive certificates issued over information in relation to Bruce Stadium. He thought that he was treated badly and he came in here on a platform of reform. And what have we seen, even today—the old, tired argument that the whole cabinet process will come tumbling down if this document is released.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .