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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 940 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

This budget became, unfortunately, very much a vehicle for government announcements over the holiday break. One element after another after another of the budget was announced to the media before it was presented to members. I think that is an unfortunate process. I think to some extent it shows a lack of goodwill for the process, and to some extent a degree of cynicism in the Government's approach. Overall, the test of this process will be the goodwill with which the Government does accept the reports of various committees, it being a process done for the first time. I look forward to seeing the Government's attitude in about 12 months time when it faces the question of whether it does it again or whether it does not want to do it, given that that will be about nine months away from an election.

In relation to the budget process, the question of community consultation arose fairly quickly. Quite clearly, there were conflicting messages promulgated about the respective roles of the Government and the committees in relation to receiving public submissions. I think, to some extent, they were resolved, although I think the Treasurer stuck with the statement that he did think that this was still the best vehicle for community consultation.

I have made the point before, but I would like to make it again - we have made it as a committee in this report - that there are very compelling reasons why this draft budget process could not be used as a vehicle for public consultation. First of all, I do not think anything should stand in the way of access by interested parties and groups within the community to a direct hearing on the budget. Committees, with the best possible intent in the world, must become filters, and whatever they present must necessarily be a function of the interpretations placed on submissions.

Committees are comprised of cross-party representation. If there is goodwill within the committees, they will be seeking to provide consensus and compromised views. Again, this is a dilution of the process that might otherwise be available to stakeholders and to interested groups. Stakeholders will often find that their submissions transcend portfolio boundaries.

We think that the resolution that set up this process in the first place was quite restrictive, as we all know, and that the transcending of some interest beyond the artificial boundaries that we have between portfolios would weaken the strength of any particular submission made to government, and certainly could put two different constructs on it within the same system. I do not think stakeholders should be hit with and constrained by the same proscription that the Government placed on this of not being able to alter the bottom line in a particular portfolio area. So the committee has concluded and recommends to the Government that this review process, should it be continued, should not be seen as acting as a replacement for the Government's process of consultation with the community and its responsibility to remain open to those stakeholders and those interested groups.

For its part, the committee still accepted its role and accepted the resolution of the Assembly. It advertised, as the Government advertised overall. The advertisements went out for interested groups to make submissions. This committee also directly invited some 100 business and community groups to make submissions and received in the

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