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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1932 ..

Mrs Carnell: We agreed with it, except for one recommendation.

MR WHITECROSS: I am getting to that, Mrs Carnell. We simply cannot trust this Government to take the recommendations of the committee seriously. Each year Mrs Carnell, as Treasurer, has stood up here and exuberantly said that she agrees with almost all the recommendations of the Estimates Committee. She did it again this year, and she has just interjected from across the chamber to say so. Last week she said, "The Government supports, either in principle or in full, all but one of the recommendations". Last year she even went as far as saying that the Estimates Committee endorsed her budget, which was a slight exaggeration.

Mrs Carnell's response can, at best, be described as shallow. It is true that "Agreed in principle" appears in abundance in the Government response. But what does this really mean? Last year Mrs Carnell said she agreed in principle to the committee recommendation that the Government provide details of revenue forgone in the provision of assistance to industry. Mrs Carnell said the Government was considering ways of ensuring that the cost of in-kind assistance, particularly in relation to the ACT business incentive scheme, was more visible and accountable and that this was consistent with the principles of financial management reforms. Well, the Government is obviously still thinking, because there is nothing in the budget papers.

Mrs Carnell also said that she agreed in principle with the Estimates Committee recommendation that the Government provide comprehensive monthly statements. At least we all know why she agreed in principle only, because she never really intended to provide monthly statements. Instead, Mrs Carnell has provided statements only according to her own timing; when she has felt like it; in the middle of the night; the day before Easter. The first three months' figures were provided as a quarterly statement, not as monthly statements. Her goal appears to have been to minimise scrutiny, rather than to meet the spirit of the financial management reforms. This year the financial statements for March were tabled in May, on budget day, ensuring that they were swamped with the budget coverage and that the Assembly did not have up-to-date financial information upon which to assess the budget. We are debating the Appropriation Bill today, and the March figures are still the latest figures we have. It is nearly the end of June, and the latest figures we have are to the end of March.

Mrs Carnell also agreed in principle to a range of other things that she obviously never intended doing. However, it allowed her to put out a media statement that she agreed with the committee. This is a government forever looking for a positive headline but not so concerned with actions. Mrs Carnell agreed, as opposed to agreed in principle, to a range of recommendations she has yet to implement. It is a sign of the contempt for the Estimates Committee process that the Government has yet to provide comparative figures in the budget papers. Comparative figures are essential in determining variations in revenues and expenditures. The Government's allocation of funding to specific outputs year on year must be able to be compared in order for the Assembly to ensure the Government is accountable.

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