Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 7 December 2000
Page: 21124


Senator MACKAY (4:11 PM) —The point of that previous contribution was to highlight that, in fact, the minister has admitted that it is a new formula, which would appear to be directly in conflict with statements by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Anderson.

Let me move on to another issue, which was not answered at the estimates process, and that is the issue of the intrastate division amongst local government authorities. The formula used for this allocation is based on the current state grants commission formula used for the distribution of the identified road component of FAGs. The state grants commissions did not do the allocation. The government simply applied the retrospective formula. The government relied on the relativities determined from the most recent state grants commission process.

During the estimates, I attempted to clarify the issue of the metro and rural divide that was highlighted in Minister Anderson's own press release, which was the result of simply applying the existing state grants commission formulas. Didn't Minister Macdonald make a song and dance about that question! Here is a sample of some of the things he said at estimates in relation to what I thought was a fairly basic question. With regard to the section in Minister Anderson's press release which talked about the disparity of the greater metro versus the rural and regional divide in terms of funding, he said this:

That is not mentioned in the act.

He went on to say:

It is certainly not relevant to the act and certainly not relevant to estimates.

When he was asked why, then, Minister Anderson put it in his press release of 27 November, he said:

I have no idea what is in his mind.

We now have evidence, of course, that this is not an unusual occurrence. In response to questions about statements in Minister Anderson's press release, he said:

I am not going to answer.

The committee was then forced to have a private meeting to decide the relevance of questions in Minister Anderson's press release, and the chair was forced to change his ruling, saying:

The fact is that if there is a press release relating to government expenditure, that can be examined in these estimates.

So a fairly simple question was refused by Minister Macdonald. I think we might have to refer him to the Procedure Committee, yet again. The following exchange then took place. I said:

I do not believe I have an answer to that.

Minister Macdonald:

You believe what you like.

Me:

Will you perhaps ask Minister Anderson?

Minister Macdonald:

No.

Me:

You will not ask Minister Anderson?

This is in relation to the minister's own press release, by the way. Minister Macdonald:

No.

Me:

Will you take the question on notice?

Which would have given him a chance to have a chat to Minister Anderson in relation to it, but Minister Macdonald said no. I went on to say:

I will just clarify my point of order. The minister has refused to ask Minister Anderson and has also refused to take the question on notice. I think that is a contravention of the standing orders.

The acting chair at that stage was poor old Senator McGauran. He said:

Your question is not out of order. I can only urge the minister to refer the question to John Anderson ...

And he did not. Given that fairly puerile response from the minister in relation to a question that was specific to a statement in Minister Anderson's press release, I wonder if the minister can now apprise the chamber of what underpinned the issue in terms of the quantum between metro councils and rural and regional councils.