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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1976 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

to base claims on only one indicator; so let us look at another indicator, private sector investment. In the March quarter 2000, private sector investment was 32 per cent higher than in the same period the previous year. The data confirm the correctness of the government's business culture and make a mockery of the negative sentiments on the state of our economy expressed by the ACT Labor Party.

I did not dissent from recommendation 6, which invites the Treasurer to analyse the relative roles of the public and private sectors, because it provides another opportunity for the Treasurer to inform this place of the government's outstanding record.

In relation to the GMC 400 V8 supercar race, I informed the committee that its figures were wrong and we had some debate about that, but a majority of members refused to take it seriously and make the correction. For members of the committee who were aware of the correct estimates knowingly to publish false data in their report reflects badly on the integrity and usefulness of the committee. Accordingly, I dissociate myself from paragraph 4.1.

Again, it is not true that all committee members disapproved of senior executives having sports cars as part of their salary packages.

Mr Berry: Ha, ha!

MR HIRD: I hear Mr Berry. Whilst it is typical of Labor to deny its employees any goods and services which are not approved by the state, my colleagues on this side and I believe in the principle of people being able to exercise choice. I therefore dissent from paragraph 4.7.

Growth needs funding in the health budget was the subject of considerable debate within the committee. This part of the report reflects the obsession of some of the committee members with expenditure and inputs, as distinct from outputs and results. The purpose of outputs-based budgeting is to fund ministers and their agencies to achieve specified results. They should not be required in advance of the event to be tied to micro detail of expenditure to achieve these results. The appropriate time for accountability of expenditure is in detailed reports to the parliament after the event.

Whilst not objecting to recommendation 16, which calls for a formal statement of expenditure, I would remind members of the house of the need to be flexible in order to meet with the community's changing needs most effectively. This is a basic tenet of the Financial Management Act. With no apparent thought to cost, the majority of the committee felt free to recommend increases in expenditure in a number of areas, such as for nursing staff in recommendation 18, the dental program in recommendation 22, the Canberra Blind Society in recommendation 23, the Down Syndrome Association in recommendation 24, disability services in recommendation 25, accommodation for young indigenous offenders in recommendation 28, Care's legal services in recommendation 32, and PALM in recommendation 38.

Whilst individually each of these may be worthy causes-I underline that they may be worthy causes-the committee failed to mention how they should be funded. This failure typifies the attitude endemic in the Labor Party and prevailing in the committee that there was no sense of responsibility for implementing its recommendations. In the

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