Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4048 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

We are going to publish that information in the annual report". Mr Speaker, that is not what the Estimates Committee asked for. What the Government should have said is that they do not agree; but, of course, that is not the Government's form. The Government's form is to pretend they are doing one thing and then do something else. They are pretending to agree. What they should have said is, "Not agreed. We are going to put that in the annual report". That is what Mrs Carnell should have said, not "Agreed".

There was a good reason why this information was requested in the budget papers, and that is that next year the budget is going to be brought down and the Estimates Committee process is going to scrutinise that budget well before we are going to see an annual report. We are going to be asked to appropriate more money next year for this Government in order to fund new initiatives when we will not know how the previous initiatives have gone. The Government will not even provide us with any information about that. When we say, up front, "We think that what happened last year is the sort of information we ought to have when we consider your next year's budget", they say, "You can have that information at the end of September when the annual reports come out, not when you are considering the budget". Mr Speaker, I do not think that is good enough. I would encourage the Government to have another thought about that because it is simply not good enough.

The Government agreed in principle to the recommendation that the summary and overview papers of future budgets present in an appropriate level of detail the Government's spending on environment programs. The Government then presented a motherhood statement which trivialised the seriousness of this issue. Why could not the Government give an unequivocal commitment to provide greater detail, given the committee's concerns? I must say, however, that I am pleased that the Government is currently investigating the concept of environmental accounting. However, it is questionable that this had anything to do with the Government's response to this recommendation, even though it put it in. The point is that, because of the way the accounts have been done, the way the appropriation units are set up, you do not have a clear indication of the funding for environmental programs. The Estimates Committee made a serious recommendation and I do not think it has been taken seriously by the Government.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR WHITECROSS: Mr Speaker, can I get an extension of time?

MR SPEAKER: You can have another 10 minutes.

MR WHITECROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take another 10 minutes.

MR SPEAKER: You are entitled to two periods, not exceeding 10 minutes each.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .