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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1929 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

and made it more difficult for Assembly members to do their job. This is a key point of distinction between the approach of the Labor Party and the approach of the Liberal Party. The Labor Party is committed to the Assembly being able to do its job and is committed to the Assembly committees being able to do their job better. But this Government has cut the allocation and made it more difficult for Assembly members to do their job. The record should show that this Government has made it more difficult for Assembly members to do their job, not easier.

Mr Speaker, one thing I am particularly disappointed about is that the first Estimates Committee addressed this issue and tried to establish a new process for determining allocations for the Assembly. In recognition of the fact that this Assembly costs about half as much as governments cost in the States, this Assembly - - -

Mrs Carnell: So it should; it is half the size.

MR WHITECROSS: No; that is adjusted for our particular circumstances. We still spend, according to the Grants Commission, half as much as other States and Territories. I am not advocating that we double our budget, but what I am saying is that we should not think we have an extravagant budget and we should not be stingy about opportunities that might arise to do our job better. Recently, the Planning and Environment Committee had an idea of leafletting certain areas of North Canberra about an issue that was affecting them. It might have been the John Dedman Parkway issue, but I am not quite sure. The funds were not there to do so; they were not allowed to do so because there were not any funds there. I do not think that is adequate. We should be thinking up new, innovative ways of getting out our messages about the committees consulting with the community; yet the message is that the money is not there to do so.

Mr Humphries talks about how they consult with the Assembly before they allocate the budget. Yes, they consult with the Assembly; they say, "This is what we are going to give you". Then the Administration and Procedure Committee says, "It is not enough". They say, "Bad luck; you are going to get it anyway". I do not think that is consultation. If the Administration and Procedure Committee did not waste any time on it this year, Mr Humphries, it is not surprising, after the treatment they got last year and the year before. The fact is that we do need a new approach to allocating funds to the Assembly, an approach which takes an expansive view of the role of the Assembly, an approach which says, "It is in everybody's interests - Government, Opposition, crossbenches - for the Assembly to be able to do their job better; most importantly, it is in the interests of the community for the Assembly to be able to do their job better". I hope that there will be a more expansive approach taken in future to this. If there is a Labor government after the next election there will be a more expansive approach taken to this, because Labor's record is clear. We are the ones who allocated additional funds to make it easier for the Assembly to do their job; it is the Liberals who cut it back.

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