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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1985 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Having briefly read the recommendations of the Estimates Committee, the general impression I have is that concern is being expressed by members of the committee about social expenditure. Some concern about environmental expenditure is reflected in, I think, the last recommendation. There is a certain randomness to the recommendations in terms of the areas where the committee is asking for further consideration by the government of expenditure. I do not blame the committee for that. I think it is an indication of the way that government is determining expenditure.

Mr Rugendyke has just said that he thinks the process worked because the beat police proposal was supported by a committee. He thinks that this is a reflection of how the process can use the expertise or views of the community, but it may well be just due to the fact that Mr Rugendyke is particularly keen on this issue and is in a very clear position of power in this place as an elected representative on the crossbench.

If we are really serious about wanting to see less politicking around the issue of budgets and estimates committees, we have to be still asking for government to take a more thoughtful approach to determining social expenditure in particular. It has come up in every Estimates Committee that I can recall from ACTCOSS and other organisations which are working in the social services area that we need to have a social plan of some kind, that we need to have much greater focus on an analysis which shows the way our community is operating and the way government policies are actually impacting on society in terms of equity.

We need to have greater analysis from government on issues of equity. For example, we have a picture of success being created by having a surplus in the budget, improved employment figures and statistics on work in the private sector versus work in the public sector, but we are not seeing where the benefit of this so-called success is falling and what are the costs of a success dimension which is based on the economic picture of the bottom line; in other words, the surplus.

The situation is asking for a more thorough analysis of need and it is asking for a more thorough analysis of the impact of government policies. If we actually had that from government, whether Labor or Liberal, one would think that there would be less politicking in the review of a budget and more thoughtful discussion and dialogue about how best we can actually meet what I think are the ultimate aims of all of us here, which is an equitable and healthy society.

The healthy cities conference is occurring in this city this week and I am assuming that members here are familiar with at least some of the presentations that are being put there and the concerns that are coming from the section of the community which is supporting the healthy cities concept. Concerns are being raised about issues of governance, particularly in the context of a philosophy which is based to a large degree on the free market principles of both the Labor and Liberal parties. I will conclude with those comments, but look forward to a much more detailed debate in the consideration of the budget.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate.

Leave granted.

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