Page 2694 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
general functions that we expect the executive to fulfil. There is only a modest increase in the amount to be appropriated from last year and the amount does appear reasonable given the scope of the task that is to be performed.
But I would like to follow on from Mrs Dunne and say that I do believe there can be a look at what sort of savings can be achieved. We are sort of applying an efficiency dividend across the public service and I am sure that there also could be some savings in, for instance, as was just said, the short-haul flights—flying economy rather than business class. I am sure there are other areas where those savings could be achieved.
I certainly also take up the issue around what is provided to staff. It is pretty tight for non-executive members. Certainly, there is less that their staff can access to do their job. I would like to see some discussion around how that might be improved and how assistance for non-executive members might be improved in doing their day-to-day tasks, which are also very important.
On the issue of raising the number of ministers, I am sure that Mr Seselja does understand that this parliament cannot make that change. It comes under the self-government act. It has to be done at the federal level. So it would need to be part of a self-government act review, and that is where we do need to take it up. It is this Assembly that does need to take on that issue I believe at some point to be able to change a number of things that are in the self-government act. That also includes the size of the Assembly. Of course, that obviously raises the issue about accommodation into the future—into the long-term—if the numbers in the Assembly are raised. But as I said, there is only a modest increase in the amount to be appropriated under this line item and the Greens will support this appropriation.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (5.14): I will not speak for very long on this, but I am staggered, flabbergasted, by the comments from those opposite. They are talking about a government office block in the context of the executive. Mr Seselja said, and I can quote one of them, “When those people in Tuggeranong are being asked to pay more,” and then he goes “and when you ask vulnerable people”—kids with disabilities et cetera. This is from a man whose party took $10,000 away from the disadvantaged people in this town by applying for volunteering funds. That has got to be an inconsistency of monumental proportions. I find his choice of words a bit challenging from here.
I also found it a bit challenging for Mrs Dunne to make comparisons between the executive and non-executive member appropriations. While it is quite reasonable to argue one’s own case, doing those sorts of comparisons is not valid, in my humble opinion. I do not think we can say, “They get more money than us.” That is silly. If people want to argue that they need to have more money so that they can discharge their duties as members, let them put up the proof and make the case. I am sure admin and procedures would be delighted to hear it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I find it really distasteful, on a day that we are talking about the vulnerable people in this town having $10,000 denied them, to find Mrs Dunne talking about extra money for her own self to do her own job as a backbencher in this place. I find that incredibly distasteful. I think it is quite inappropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video