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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1686 ..

Ms Carnell: You did not ask one question about a performance indicator.

MR CORBELL: Sorry, Chief Minister, I disagree. These are issues that were raised throughout the Estimates Committee process, but the answers we received were simply not comprehensible. They did not address these sorts of issues. There are a range of other issues that need to be addressed by this Government in other budgets. What do these sorts of measures mean for publicly-owned bodies? Can they be compared across agencies? Is there a normal or an optimal figure? If so, who defines it? On all of these sorts of issues, we were unable to get answers.

Comparability and transparency were also key issues in this budget. Yet we found that administrative arrangements changed with little explanation or justification. Examples were InTACT going into CanDeliver and the land release function of PALM going into the Office of Asset Management. Accounting treatments also changed, with little or only cryptic explanation. For instance, comparative pricing was apparently selectively applied. There was no indication of the process for determining the price. Output classes were also rearranged. They were usually simplified, which has the effect of severely limiting the information that could be obtained without careful and sustained questioning in the Estimates Committee. Comparability is the issue I am raising there.

I want to turn now to a very important issue in this budget, and that is the issue of the Institute of the Arts. As my colleague Mr Wood said earlier, this budget rests in the hands of two people. This budget rests in the hands of Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne. Mr Rugendyke has been strong in his attendance at functions opposing the cut to the Institute of the Arts, but tonight Mr Rugendyke has a choice to make. As my colleague Mr Wood said earlier, he can choose to vote against this appropriation unit, and so can his colleague Mr Osborne. Alternatively, he can choose to call the Chief Minister's bluff. As my colleague Mr Wood has pointed out, there is no precedent that requires the Government to resign if you vote against this appropriation unit.

Mr Rugendyke: Except the need for a credible alternative.

MR CORBELL: That applies only if you vote against the budget overall. Mr Rugendyke interjects, "Except the need for a credible alternative". Mr Rugendyke does not understand the argument I am putting to him. I am not suggesting that the Government will fall. What I am suggesting to Mr Rugendyke is that he should stand up to this Government. After all his grandstanding on issues about the Institute of the Arts, including him conducting the Canberra Youth Orchestra with great aplomb, he should say to the Chief Minister, "That is not an acceptable cut and I will not support it. I will oppose this appropriation unit".

He is not prepared to do that. As Mr Kaine said earlier, that is gutless. That is gutless, Mr Rugendyke, and you know it is gutless. You have the ability, you have the power, and you and your colleague can vote against this appropriation unit if you choose. You have not chosen to do that, and that is enormously disappointing. In fact, we are yet to see Mr Osborne down here for any part of this budget deliberation.

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