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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2122 ..

Mr Kaine: The question is: When did it go unserviceable?

MR HUMPHRIES: That is the other vitally important issue. When did it go unserviceable? I am rocked, I am rocked to the core, Mr Speaker, and I think all the other people listening to this debate tonight would be in the same boat.

I pricked up my ears at another comment by Mr Whitecross. Mr Whitecross was very critical of the fact that the Government appeared to have been responsive to a suggestion made from a private firm concerning the future of Canberra cemeteries. Mr Whitecross complained that we were sitting there and someone came to the door and made an offer and we responded to it. "What do they think they are doing, just responding to people's offers?", he complained. "That is no way to make Government policy", he said. Mr Speaker, I think he might have a point. As I recall, that is exactly what happened when the former Labor Government embarked on the VITAB arrangement. Someone came through the door with a really good offer, and those opposite thought it was a really good idea and decided to take it up. The rest is history. So, Mr Speaker, perhaps he has a point; perhaps we should not just wait for people to come to the door and make offers.

The main comments I want to make relate to Ms Horodny's remarks about the environment budget, Mr Speaker. If what she said was the best that she can say about the ACT Government's environment record, then I think we are in pretty good shape as far as management of the environment is concerned. Very little of what she had to say constituted hard, solid evidence of a lack of vision or a lack of good management of the environment. Certainly, we can debate the accounting, including whether roads being created in natural reserve areas really is spending on the environment; but I really cannot see her going to the next election and saying, "Do not vote Liberal, because they will build roads in national parks and they will call it spending on the environment". That is not exactly the sort of theme on which I would seek to get nine seats.

Mr Speaker, there were some issues raised that I want to respond to briefly. Ms Horodny has criticised the lack of a single environment budget document. We have indicated in the response to the Estimates Committee report that we intend to provide information in Budget Paper No. 2, as recommended by this Estimates Committee; so that issue is not really a concern from this point on.

Ms Horodny said there was creative accounting when it came to the way in which budget expenditure was described. I have to ask whether the reality is that Ms Horodny has not fully followed the way in which the accounts have been laid out. I acknowledge that they are complex and I acknowledge that they are not easy to follow; but any suggestion that, for example, we are not spending money as appropriate on these areas is stoutly resisted. Any suggestion that money has been salted away or has been disguised in some way is not true. The fact of the matter is that the ACT today has the most transparent method of accounting that this Territory has ever seen, and, indeed, that any other budget of any other government in this country has experienced before. If Ms Horodny cannot see where the money is going, it is because she either has not asked the right questions or has not read the documents appropriately.

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