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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2108 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

that I would like to give more thought to and have the Estimates Committee have a more thorough look at in the years to come - for me hopefully this year and for other estimates committees perhaps in the future - to see whether even in this form of budgeting, which does provide for a very clear level of detail as to where the actual money is spent, we can come better to the heart of where the actual policy directions are going.

It seems to me that this is a major absence which is epitomised very well in the sport, recreation and racing budget papers. We have before us the goals and the outlook of the program areas. We have within each of the program areas some quite detailed information about the activity that is going on. It is like a map of what is actually happening and is very accurate, saying that X does this job and Y does that, this is what they are trying to do, and over a year this is how they do it with their money. But it seems to me not to link in to any greater Government objective. Maybe this particular part of the budget papers is not the place. Maybe it is something that needs to be addressed in a different part of the budget papers. I am exploring ideas here, rather than making a definitive and final criticism.

I would like to point out, by way of criticism, what is troubling me. We talk here about improving participation. The national Active Australia program has introduced more Australians to the benefits of an active lifestyle, and the effective relationship that has been established between the Bureau of Sport, Recreation and Racing programs will maximise the impact of this initiative in Canberra. What does it mean to get a list that says, "This year 1,000 people were active and next year we hope to get 1,500 more active; therefore, we have succeeded."? When you add it all up, it does not mean very much at all. What is it that we are actually trying to do? What is this Government there for? What is this budget here for, Mrs Carnell? I realise that this is a bit above your head, so do not worry about it; just leave it alone. I am positing something a little deeper and more philosophical than the usual trite nonsense that we indulge in. If it is all too much, please just leave the room.

Mrs Carnell: Normally, budgets are about figures and how you are spending the money.

MS McRAE: We hear Mrs Carnell explaining to me that budgets are about figures and how we are spending the money. What I am suggesting to Mrs Carnell is that the bottom line question that any government has to answer is what you are spending the money for. What are you attempting to achieve? Why are you in government? What is government doing for anyone in Canberra? I think this is what budget papers should be about. I think budget papers should explain this.

Mr Kaine: You deliver things like health standards and education. You run bus services. You provide police services.

MS McRAE: Mr Kaine is helpfully pointing out to Mrs Carnell that you provide bus services, schools and hospitals; but even within that what I am positing here is that we can run as many sporting programs as we like forever, but it will not make one iota of difference to the health of an individual if we do not have a clear policy objective of

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