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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 457 ..

MR RUGENDYKE

input. Non-executive members do not have the information nor do they have the resources to "fix the budget", as the headline says, under present arrangements. If the Government expected us to come up with the answers in a few weeks, with the resources we have, again I just say that they are kidding themselves.

If the rest of the Assembly is going to have meaningful input, the process has got to change. (Quorum formed) I view this debate today as the start of a process, a building block or a stepping stone towards reviewing how we do business in regard to the budget. I expect that the report of the review of governance committee to be handed down today will have a recommendation to reform the budgetary process, and I look forward to that report.

In the one budget that I have had experience with I had problems with that "take it or leave it" budget. If the Government wants to share responsibility, it is not possible under this system. My first budget was "like it or lump it". There were aspects of last year's budget that I did not like - for example, the introduction of the inequitable and loathed insurance levy - but there was no room to move.

I recognise that preparing and implementing the budget is the task of the Executive. I recognise that it is part of the Executive's charter to formulate the bottom line. But how we get to that bottom line should be flexible. There is no way that we can have a properly inclusive budget until that flexibility is introduced. We should look closely at the alternatives; for example, the issue of draft estimates to a standing committee for consideration. But, if the Government is not prepared to explore and implement alternatives, it cannot expect to share responsibility.

We all know that it was no coincidence that the sudden urgency for the Government to debate sharing budget responsibility came after this Assembly rejected the sale of ACTEW. Neither I nor the community buys the scare tactics from the Chief Minister that a horror budget is around the corner just because ACTEW was retained in public hands. We all know how badly the Chief Minister wanted to sell ACTEW. Because she failed, it does not mean that she can throw her hands in the air and blame everybody else for a tough budget. This is especially the case since ACTEW was never put up as the answer in last year's forward estimates. Its sale was never mentioned as the cornerstone to our financial future. Let us remember that it was only a year ago that the Government went to great lengths to hide its plans for ACTEW.

This Government was elected because it supposedly had the ideas; it had the plans to manage and govern the Territory. Selling ACTEW was never mentioned in those plans. The $44m from the Commonwealth Grants Commission announced last week is a welcome bonus in the lead-up to this budget. It is not the saviour; but it waters down Ms Carnell's call to brace for a horror budget. This increased allocation was recognition from the Commonwealth Grants Commission that we have to have a lower capacity to generate revenue. But the commission also noted that we are less than efficient in a lot of areas. The obvious area that the ACT has been less than efficient in providing for is the unfunded superannuation liability.

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