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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 935 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

because in every single area we were being told that there was unmet need and underresourcing. Obviously, we were not able to do the shuffling that Mr Humphries seemed to want committees do. We chose instead to make comments relating to the funding matters; so we did work within the spirit of the motion of the Assembly. Therefore, I reject Mr Humphries' comments on the timing issue.

Mr Humphries said that we should have asked for a briefing and help to work out how to reshuffle the money. Mr Humphries might like to know that we did have a private briefing from officials of the department. We did not ask them to talk to us specifically about how to reshuffle the money, but we did ask for a private briefing and it was very helpful. I acknowledged that when we spoke with the Minister. I recall that we thanked him for making his officials available. We had a private briefing at which we had the opportunity to look in detail at a number of issues relating to the budget, and that was helpful, but that would not have been a briefing at which we could have been told how we could reshuffle the money because, obviously, the work of the committee was to listen to the community and deliberate on whether there was room within that portfolio area to move money and it was the considered view of the majority of the committee that we did not have that ability.

Of interest to me is that, I understand from Mr Kaine, Mr Humphries offered the chair of the Justice Committee $1.5m at one stage. I am not sure what happened to that. If we had known that we could go to Mr Humphries and say that we wanted more money, we would have done so. I just was not told that we could do that. It is really useful to know that, if this happens again, I can go to the Treasurer and say that we want more money and we might get it, depending on what happens with the Justice Committee.

Mr Kaine: And you might not.

MS TUCKER: We might not, as Mr Kaine says. Maybe the Justice Committee will not be getting it after all; but it is an interesting concept. Mr Humphries was very indignant - in fact, he was gravely disappointed - about the way in which we presented this report. He said that we had the job of refining and distilling elements of the budget, which is work that government does. He said that it is hard work being in government, but we should have done that. I totally reject that. I assume that a government would not look at each portfolio area separately and make decisions about funding only within that area and not move outside it. If that is how government works, I am fascinated. It sounds like a bad way to work.

Mr Humphries did not want to increase borrowings and said that we were being irresponsible in that regard. I need to address that. By making comments about the particular portfolio area that we believed could well need greater resourcing, we have been accused of forcing the Government into debt. That is a silly argument because, obviously, the Government can make broad decisions across portfolio areas as to where the priorities lie and it can make decisions about revenue measures. That is something that we bring up every year. Expenditure cannot be separated from revenue raising and we need to have discussion on that in total if we are serious about working together on looking at budgetary matters.

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