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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2040 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Elsewhere in the report we get criticism of the proposals for policing, for the crime prevention initiatives, and the committee goes to some length to describe how these matters were formulated in cabinet, and posed, in effect, that it was a top down decision of government. They said, "We want to spend more money on crime prevention. Cabinet makes a decision, and the decision filters downwards from cabinet." Of that process, the committee says this:

So, bottom up is bad, top down is bad. What is left? Apparently middle managers are the only people entitled to develop policy proposals.

We also got, incidentally, this comment from the committee-that it thinks we should not be picking up and running with this idea for beat police in the ACT. It was pointed out that the proposal to have beat police actually arose out of the draft budget process. The justice committee recommended that we pick up the idea and run with it. Now we are told that we should go off and do a "detailed rigorous justification" of the need for beat policing.

I want to have this question answered, Mr Speaker. If we are allowed to disregard recommendations of Assembly committees if there has not been a detailed and rigorous justification for them by government or government officers, where does that end? Can we disregard all the recommendations we are not too comfortable about or would like to delay a bit while a detailed and rigorous justification is conducted?

Might I ask the other question? If there are all these things that the government should be funding, as recommended in this report, that long list that refers to the dental program, the blind society, disability services, Down syndrome, Care's legal services, PALM, blah, blah, blah, blah, where is the "detailed rigorous justification" for those things? Well? Well, where are they? We do not know, Mr Speaker. Apparently it is all right, when the committee does not like it, to knock off a proposal in this because not enough homework has been done on this. "We need more research; we need more findings, more studies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera." I seek an extension of time, Mr Speaker.

Mr Wood: Oh, not a third extension of time, or is it the fourth?

MR HUMPHRIES: The second extension of time.

Mr Wood: How many more will we have?

MR HUMPHRIES: One more. (Further extension of time granted.) I thank members for the extension. I will not go beyond the five minutes I have been allocated. So what exactly is the process that the committee wants us to adopt? Can we pick up recommendations of Assembly committees without a detailed and rigorous justification? If we cannot, when can't we do so?

Mr Speaker, the government has been criticised for its draft budget process. The Assembly knows full well that it decided that the draft budget process would be used and that the process has been successful. It has resulted in change to the budget process. The

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