Page 2858 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
could cut these taxes, get some efficiency here and deliver a bit of a surplus to the community.” They did not do that; they only raised taxes.
We can probably suspect that they took one part of what he said. It is a little bit like the Henry tax review—which, to the Rudd government’s credit, they actually did release. They did not keep it secret. But, to their discredit, they had a tax review which had a range of suggested tax changes, and all they did was take one aspect of that, the mining tax—and they changed that anyway—and proposed to do that. Then of course they backflipped and did a deal with a couple of miners.
We can suspect here that Mr Costello not only recommended efficiencies—which have not been undertaken—or potentially some extra revenue; he probably also recommended some efficiencies and some tax cuts. I would be willing to bet that that was the case. The government do not want to release that, because it might highlight all of the things they rejected—the things that they felt they did not want to do or they could not afford but were a good idea. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could have that debate—if we could have a look at this report and say: “Why don’t you take up that suggestion? Why did you reject that suggestion from Mr Costello?”
As we discussed last night in the chamber, there is an opportunity here for a new Chief Minister to show that she is different, that she has learned from her mistakes and that she has learned from the mistakes of her predecessor, who claimed to be open and accountable and was not. This minister has not been open and accountable in the past. She has the opportunity to turn over a new leaf. She can do that by releasing this report. That would be the first test. If she does not, we can just assume that it is more empty rhetoric. We can assume that the words that she says about openness and transparency are just as empty as Jon Stanhope’s. (Time expired.)
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Treasurer) (4.36): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the opportunity to discuss again exactly the same motion that we have been discussing for the last five years. The government will not be supporting the motion, and that is not because the government does not support an open government and not because it is a question that the opposition has not had answered by this government in detail again and again. We will not be supporting it because an independent reviewer who has been appointed by the Assembly, Sir Laurence Street, already made a ruling on this very matter in 2009.
We will not be supporting this motion because, at the heart of this motion, it undermines the role of executive privilege and the reality that such privilege, responsibly exercised, is a necessary element for executive government to function—not just for this government but for governments in this place in the future. Members of the Liberal Party simply do not understand that privilege or do not respect that privilege.
In May 2009, during debate in this place on exactly this issue, even though the independent arbiter who made the assessment on this matter was appointed by the Assembly and even though his decision not to release the report was clearly communicated to members of this chamber, I at that point foreshadowed that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video