Page 2358 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


amount. But for the life of me I cannot understand how the Greens went with that. The transcript shows, on its face, a claim by Mr Coe that the prices charged under OwnPlace were extortionate. That is essentially a claim of price gouging. That is what it is, plain and simple. This was all done, of course, under the coward’s cover of parliamentary privilege. Read the transcript. Open it. They are good, honest builders. Five of the most reputable building companies in Canberra are fair game for the Liberal Party.

There are, of course, limits to what any government is required to divulge in the name of open and accountable government—limits imposed by sheer resources. How many Canberrans would agree that it is an appropriate and worthwhile use of their public service to sit hour upon hour answering questions of the calibre of some that I have read out today.

These limits are imposed by cabinet confidentiality. Sir Laurence Street, of course, our independent arbiter, gets it. It is a pity the Liberals do not get it—at least they pretend they do not get it—and it is a pity that the Greens cannot graciously accept the decision of an umpire that they themselves appointed with limits imposed by reasonableness. The quality of the avalanche of questions asked in the wake of estimates is too low for anyone to elevate them to the status of a fishing expedition. A fishing expedition perhaps you could understand. But this was an avalanche with no greater purpose than to allow the Liberals to stand here today and cry crocodile tears.

Today’s motion is, of course, as confected as they come. It was dreamed up by the political geniuses, the mighty intellects of the Liberal Party. At about the same time, Mr Coe was thinking about how he could possibly waste the maximum amount of time of public servants within TAMS. He did that by coming up with the brilliant notion of asking for the breakdown in revenue from speed cameras by month, by individual camera and by offence category in each category. It is an answer that goes to 112 pages. (Time expired.)

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.26): I congratulate Mr Seselja for bringing on this matter of public importance. I think it is one that is a constant theme and one that is particularly timely in light of recent comments made, particularly by the Chief Minister. We all were out there during the last election campaign, and we are well aware of how important open and accountable government is to the ACT community; it was a theme that came up constantly. That is why, when it came time for the Greens to sit down and talk with the parties after the election, it was a key part of the agreement we ultimately wrote with the Labor Party. The first appendix addresses many issues related to open and accountable government, some of which we have successfully implemented already and some of which we still have a bit of work to do on.

Some of the issues that have already been put in place include changes to the standing orders and confirmation by this Assembly of the acceptance of the Latimer House principles. We are currently undertaking an inquiry into whether we should have a parliamentary budget officer to improve accountability and transparency in the budget process and a range of other matters, including having a non-government chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and of the estimates committee. All of these things are steps that have incrementally improved accountability and transparency of


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .