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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 983 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

I move:

This report covers two broad aspects. The first is the committee's comment on the whole draft budget process, and the committee notes that it was not an easy task to carry out. A number of our recommendations relate to that aspect. The second aspect is our report to the Government on the needs expressed to us by community bodies - needs that we believe to be of a very high priority. I will deal with each aspect.

I believe we can substantially describe this as a unanimous report. There is only area of disagreement amongst committee members, and if you want to find that go to the last two paragraphs of the report. I hope Mr Humphries does not again follow the script that Mr Quinlan has described. The committee, and I as its chair, respect the decision of the Assembly that we should make this report. When the Assembly makes a decision binding on the Government, the Assembly expects the Government to do so. I take the view, and my colleagues took the view, that the committee too should respect the decision of the Assembly, whatever other views we may have. So we genuinely took the view of the Assembly and decided to do the best job we possibly could in considering the draft budget.

The report notes that the committee neither rejects nor accepts the health budget, but we make comments upon it. Members reserve the right subsequently to make what comments they wish on the budget when it is finally brought down. The committee states in its report that the Executive is still responsible for budget decisions and that this report that we now present is an aid to the Government's decision-making.

Let me note the first difficulty we encountered, and it is not unique to this committee. Those making submissions had to indicate, if we are to make ground, why bodies should get further funding, and associated with that was the need to suggest what other areas may need to be reduced in funding. We found in our deliberations that community bodies were not prepared to do that. If someone wants to read the transcripts of our meetings with those bodies they will see that. They were not prepared to say that some other area should be reduced in funding so that they may get more. Not surprisingly, the committee itself had the same view.

I am sure that Mr Humphries, therefore, is going to be as disappointed with this report as with the two that have been commented upon so far. Mr Humphries' position is totally unrealistic. In his comments on Mr Quinlan's report he was critical because, he said, Mr Quinlan did not respond to community bodies. I expect that Mr Quinlan did. Certainly, our committee did because the community bodies were not prepared to take the steps that Mr Humphries seemed to require.

In any case, we could not change those bottom lines. We could not validly do so. There is simply not enough program detail for meaningful analysis, and we make that comment in the report. There was not enough program detail. Just in terms of money amounts, we could not tell. But, more than that, there is no information about how those amounts were reached. There are no priorities, there is no background, there is no needs

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