Page 2820 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
Mr Hanson: You’re spending extra hundreds of millions. That’s not true, you’re spending hundreds of millions.
MR STANHOPE: We are cutting their growth. They are required to find a one per cent dividend on their funding, as it is across the board. It is interesting that Mr Hanson actually accepts that that is reasonable. In the first actual response that we have had from a member of the Liberal Party about the efficiency dividend, Mr Hanson now agrees with the efficiency dividend of one per cent for the department of health. That really is some additional significant information that we have about the Liberal Party’s attitude to these issues. Thank you, Mr Hanson, for the first bit of clarification we have had from the Liberal Party on this issue.
The government’s position is that this is an issue that should be looked at independently, objectively and rigorously based on the facts and the evidence. That is what the government in the estimates response by the Treasurer proposes to do and that is what I signalled last week, in response to a question about the estimates report, we would be doing. When one looks at the proportion of total government expenditure that the Auditor-General provides in the context of the claims, “Well, it’s going to drop from what it was last year,” it is important to look at the context and the history. Since 2003-04, the ratio, which in that year was 0.39, has increased in 2005-06 to 0.47 and in 2009-10, on advice to me from Treasury, to 0.54. The trend is up, up, up under this government. Under this government the trend as a proportion is up, is up, is up again, is up again, is up again. We have consistently supported the Auditor-General. We have consistently supported the importance of the work that she does and we have reflected that as a government through significant additional expenditures.
In that regard, the government believes that the Greens’ amendment is appropriate. It essentially reflects the decision reflected in the estimates report. We are more than happy to support the good sense which Ms Le Couteur has shown today in relation to this. I will conclude on the point: at the end of the day, it cannot be ignored that the ACT Auditor-General’s Office is the most heavily resourced Auditor-General’s office in Australia—$5 per capita in New South Wales against just about $17 in the ACT. (Time expired.)
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.12): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very important amendment. It is quite important that the Assembly places on record its support for the Auditor-General’s Office and that it clearly and unreservedly condemns the Chief Minister for his outrageous attack upon the Auditor-General which culminated in his intemperate comments last week. We have heard it here today. There has not been an occasion when the Chief Minister has come in here in the last two days and said: “I apologise to the Auditor-General. I apologise to the members of this place and through them to the people of the ACT for my intemperate comments.” He has had plenty of opportunities—he was challenged to do it yesterday—and he has not done it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .