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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 981 ..

That comment is totally false. Nowhere in the budget is there any such statement. In fact, the operating statement for the Canberra Hospital, at page 273 of the draft budget, shows a net increase in ACT government funding - user charges - of $6.916m. There is no justification for Mr Quinlan's claim.

Mr Quinlan, I think you would now recognise, on behalf of the committee, not on your own behalf as chair, that the two figures mentioned in paragraph 6.2 - the $5.111m and the $4.259m - are both injections. You simply cannot take one from the other. It would be appropriate to recognise that this is yet another problem with this report.

MR QUINLAN (4.38), in reply: With the superannuation, we relayed a confusion that is part of the draft budget and its convoluted accounting. I will leave it at that. Mr Smyth mentioned that the waste bins were bio-bins. I suggest to him that he get in touch with the trash pack industry and assuage their fears. They certainly think that these bins are likely to have a severe impact upon their livelihood and their capacity to meet their mortgages.

In the overall context, I guess this whole process is operating according to script. We have had the draft budget. We have had all the contrived leaks or pre-budget announcements. We have had the committee's report. I repeat as forcefully as I can that, given the various activities that non-government members or non-Cabinet members are involved in - I include you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker - and given the number of debates they are involved in, the time and resources were tight. As soon as you finish a report, you have your heart in your mouth because you know that people are waiting to tear the thing apart. That is all part of the script.

Nevertheless, the committee I chaired went out of its way to make sure it did what it could in relation to the draft budget. Mr Humphries brought forward the criticism that we had the temerity to relay to the Government the concerns of some of the community organisations that came to address the committee in its hearings but said that we did not put forward some measures. Not all the community organisations came to us. This is part of the flaw in the system. We saw some of them. Some of them thought that coming to our committee was the only way they could have input to the Government on the draft budget or the formal budget. Others had read the later information that came out that said that they could go to the Government direct.

We took a responsible approach by including a synopsis - sure, it is our synopsis - of what they said. I cannot see that as running counter to the process. We could have said, "Those matters have nothing to do with the portfolio areas that we look at. We will not mention them at all". I do not think that would have been responsible, and I do not think that would have been an appropriate reaction to the people who bothered to write a submission and to bring the submission to the committee. I defend that part of the report most vigorously.

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