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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1984 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Committee recommendation does not encourage this outcome; it is merely a demonstration of regressive stalling and negativity.

I offer additional comments that I believe need to be put once again on the record in this place regarding the funding for the shooting gallery. I put on the record once again that I will not be supporting a budget that contains that funding. I was part of the Health and Community Care Committee, which recommended in the draft budget process redirecting that funding to drug education. I have not altered my position on that. I have strengthened my resolve, based on evidence heard by the Estimates Committee. Recommendations 21 and 33 both relate to addressing gaps in fundamental treatment and detoxification services.

MS TUCKER (12.10): I wish to speak briefly to the report of the Estimates Committee. Although I am not a member of the committee, I was present at quite a number of the hearings. Today, I would like to make comments mainly on the process. I will leave my detailed comments and responses to this report to the budget debate. Members have different views on the draft budget process. Mr Rugendyke was claiming support from ACTCOSS in particular for the draft budget process. While that is generally true, I think we need to look more carefully at the nature of this draft budget process.

It is not just a matter of saying that the draft budget process did or did not work or that we want it or do not want it. We need to look at which aspects of it seemed to work and which aspects were a problem. I have already put on the record here, but I will state it again today, that I think that it is an interesting process to look at. I agree with the members who say that they did see some benefit in the process. I think it was useful for members to have the opportunity to look in detail at the proposals as a committee. That helps us to respond to the final budget, which is always a very stressful and pressured exercise because of the timeframe in which we have to work, so I think that is an advantage.

One of my concerns was about the discipline that was imposed on how the committees could report and the fact that committees were not allowed, no matter how strong the evidence was, to make recommendations which required further expenditure unless the committees found the wherewithal to fund that expenditure within that area. That is of concern because it takes away the whole possibility of looking at the broad revenue and expenditure issues of the government of the day. Obviously, one of the key responsibilities of the government of the day is to determine where it believes expenditure should be focused or greater and the areas where it believes that revenue should be raised and the nature of the revenue-raising mechanisms. One would hope that the government of the day would be interested in aspects of regression and so on when it comes come up with proposals for increasing revenue.

By actually stopping a committee from making recommendations on expenditure unless it found the funding for it, the ability to look at the broader issues was not there at all, which meant that we really could not respond to concerns that came to us from the community reflecting inadequate funding, particularly in the area looked at by my committee, the Education, Community Services and Recreation Committee, where there are very limited revenue-raising options. If the government is to pursue this draft budget process, I would want it to look at those concerns.

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