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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 914 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Obviously, we did not have much room to move as the Government, Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke supported the notion that, in fact, we should be restricted in our committee work. Therefore, the committee chose to make comments regarding funding issues and recommendations regarding broader issues of interest. In that way we were able to work in good faith with the community, which naturally is under the impression that members are interested in and able to influence in a meaningful way matters related to the budget, and to work within the direction of the Assembly.

We have a regrettable situation. It is particularly absurd to suggest that in the service areas of Education, Children's Services and Family Services there is enough capacity to take from one area and give to another or that in those areas we could introduce greater revenue-raising mechanisms. It does make one wonder what the Government would like us to do - perhaps double subject levies in our public schools, introduce the user-pays principle for families in contact with Family Services, and charge young people in youth refuges and fine their parents.

While on the subject of process, another concern I would like to raise is that apparently Mr Stefaniak and, I understand, Mr Humphries suggested to a community organisation which is fearful of losing funding that it petition the committee and, I understand, the Justice and Community Safety Committee. That means, apparently, that the committees are also responsible for determining who should receive grants. Obviously, that is ludicrous. Are the Ministers seriously suggesting that we write to the current recipients of grants - about 150 in Education, Children's Services and Family Services and another 200-odd in Sport and Recreation - and ask them to justify themselves so that we can make decisions about possible alternatives? Are the Ministers seriously suggesting that we have the resources to do that or that it is appropriate for a committee to do that?

I do regret that the Government has failed to think this process through because it is another blow to the credibility of the committee system in this place. I find it interesting that Mr Hird, in his dissenting report, is chastising the committee for failing to conduct this inquiry in the manner which he sees fit. Mr Hird needs to understand, as do the Government and the members who support it, that, as I have already explained, the process that they have set up is flawed in very fundamental ways and this committee has attempted to salvage the process to some degree.

While I am on the subject of process, I might as well deal with the dissenting report - not the substance of the report, of which there is little, but the committee process whereby Mr Hird demanded the right in the final deliberative meeting of the committee to put in a dissenting report and did not think that it would be necessary for the committee to have the opportunity to discuss his concerns; in other words, the dissenting report would be given to the committee after its report was tabled. It was of particular concern because Mr Hird said that he thought that some of his comments in the dissenting report would be consistent with those of the committee and the recommendations that we were making; so it is even more disturbing that we were not able as a committee, because of Mr Hird's actions here, to look at what we did have in common and come up with common recommendations or to have discussions about points on which he had a very different view from the rest of the committee so that we could work on that. As members are well aware, committees like to come up with a unanimous report, to see where there is common ground and, hopefully, come up with

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