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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1974 ..

Mr Moore: I will give you three reviews that have already been done.

MR CORBELL: I am sure that the minister will have an opportunity to comment later. The committee also thought it to be important that the government inform the Assembly ahead of time of how this review would be undertaken and the methodology used.

The committee was also concerned about health funding, particularly funding and supplementation for nurses. We were concerned that there may be an outcome where expected wage increases for nursing staff would have an effect on services provided. Again, we think supplementation is important and the government should be providing supplementation in this area.

Mr Speaker, I will conclude my comments there. Other issues are identified in the report, not the least being those to do with ovals and sports grounds and a number of issues in Urban Services and the police. Because of the time, knowing other members wish to speak, I will conclude my comments there. I urge the government to effectively address this report in its response. I commend the report to the Assembly.

MR HIRD (11.25): I wish to record my dissent from the report of the Select Committee on Estimates on the 2000-01 budget for the ACT. I do so reluctantly. I ask members of this parliament to note that I sought to have my views incorporated in the body of the report, but my contributions were flatly rejected. No attempt was made by the committee to take my views into account. Hence, I had no option but to record my dissent.

Mr Speaker, my dissenting report details a number of areas where I found that the committee was interested more in making political statements than in making a contribution to the budgetary process. The first of these areas relates to the draft budget presented by the Treasurer to members for their input.

The report puts an incorrect political slant on this process. In my opinion, the government did not seek to draw the broader Assembly into the preparation of the budget, as stated in the report. The government acted at the direction of the parliament, which required the government to include Assembly members in the preparation of the budget. Because Labor members could not handle a constructive approach, they got the sulks and they are now trying to blame others for their lack of action.

It is clear that Labor did not want to give members of this place any role in the formulation of the budget. Labor members want to avoid making any useful contribution to the process. All they want to do is to complain and oppose. They very effectively give the impression that doing something useful or taking responsibility is totally foreign to them.

I also dissent from the committee's observation that the draft budget process was fundamentally flawed in that consultation was virtually irrelevant. The fact is that several community groups supported the process and said that they appreciated the opportunity to have some input at an early stage to the formulation of the budget. For example, ACTCOSS voiced its support. It was one of those groups. So what is the value of Labor's empty claim? Therefore, I reject recommendation 1. I note that another member

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