Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

GOVERNMENT: ELECTION COMMITMENTS
Wednesday, 1 June 2011 COUNCIL 1633
has not happened in this instance, so there is no point of
order.
Mrs Petrovich — On a point of order, Acting
President, I did ask that that comment be withdrawn.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr O’Brien) —
Order! I did not hear that in the point of order. Upon
reflection, I do not believe there is a point of order and
there is no statement to be withdrawn.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I have to say it is
extraordinary that the member would suggest I was
reflecting on a member in this place when she knows
full well I was not. However, I will continue on this
theme of openness, transparency and accountability.
I have on numerous occasions raised the matter of
freedom of information and the somewhat
extraordinary situation that exists now of a member of
the Premier’s private staff handling FOI applications,
even though those applications are not lodged with the
Premier’s office but with the Department of Premier
and Cabinet. Apparently a protocol has been created
that where those applications relate to the Premier’s
office in any way they are forwarded to the Premier’s
office for response, and on many occasions the
response that comes back is of such a nature that there
is no opportunity for internal review. A member of the
Premier’s private staff summarily and without the
provision of any adequate reason just rejects FOI
applications.
How can the Premier and government members
genuinely put their hands on their hearts and claim this
is an open, transparent and accountable process when
FOIs that relate to the Premier are being handled by a
member of his private staff who is answerable to his
chief of staff? It is beyond comprehension that anyone
could be so audacious as to claim they support
openness, transparency and accountability when that is
the process they have put in place. We saw as almost
the first action of this government — —
Mrs Petrovich interjected.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Let me help
Mrs Petrovich. This is a motion about broken promises.
Openness, transparency and accountability was a key
promise of the coalition, and I am going to the point of
why this is not a promise the government has kept.
One of the first acts of the new government was to slash
the opposition’s budget almost in half — not quite in
half, but almost in half. The government knows full
well that that decision makes it much more difficult for
any opposition to hold the government to account. To
put it in context, when the Liberal Party and The
Nationals went into coalition back in 2007, the then
government allowed them to combine their budgets,
which came to a total of $2.5 million or so, even though
the combined number of members of the Liberal Party
and The Nationals when they were in opposition last
term was considerably lower than the total number of
members of the opposition now. Using the spurious
excuse that they were two parties and we are one, the
government has connived to slash the opposition’s
budget and deny the opposition the ability to scrutinise
the government as well as it otherwise would.
Hon. D. M. Davis — It was exactly the same
budget.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Davis says it is
exactly the same budget. Let me take up the
interjection. He knows that is not true. He knows it is
the same budget as the Liberal Party had but not the
same — —
Hon. D. M. Davis interjected.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I advise Mr Davis that in
2007, when the Liberal-Nationals combined to form the
coalition, they had fewer members than this opposition
has now.
Hon. D. M. Davis — Prior to that time we were the
opposition. Mr Pakula knows that to be the fact.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — If Mr Davis is talking
about the 2002–06 term, the fact of the matter is — —
Hon. D. M. Davis — I am talking about after 2006;
Mr Pakula should deal with the period from 2006.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I have. I said that from the
moment the Liberal-Nationals went into coalition, the
government of the day allowed them to combine the
budgets.
When he was the Leader of the Opposition the current
Premier made a commitment to reform question time.
There has been no attempt to do anything of the sort.
There was a commitment that ministers would answer
questions directly. Nothing of the sort has occurred. We
have seen a refusal by the government to release the
Vincent report into the Office of Public Prosecutions.
Yesterday the Attorney-General said that the process
Frank Vincent has gone through is pretty much the
same as the process in the review of the Jama case.
There is one important difference. The Jama report was
publicly released; it was released to the Parliament.
There are similarities in the nature of the review, with