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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2210 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

approach only when it comes to economic management. The overall focus is very clear there, and of course it is a very narrow definition of "economic" at that.

The budget detail is financial only, and we are told by this government that that is the way it should be. Quality indicators are minimalist. It is all a bit too hard once you get past the big glossy documents and statements. Take, for example, the publication launched last week, Towards a Society for All Ages: Forward Plan for Older People in the ACT 2000/2003. There are lots of commitments. In many of these documents we have sections called "commitments"-commitments to develop, implement, assist, update, progressively increase, maintain, establish, strengthen, work with, and so on. But where is the accountability of this document and the other documents like it? Where are the targets and where are the time lines? Where is the reference to poverty and equity? It was a glaring omission from that particular document.

Where government does provide targets in the budget papers, they have not been determined after analysis of the social and environmental condition. They are not presented so as to explain how well they will meet the need. For example, the amount government claims to be spending on social capital is not explained in terms of specifically how this amount will meet the overall objectives but in response to crises or to fit in with set budget limits.

There is still no overall analysis, and there is little credibility in this government's whole approach, for the same reason. The financial targets are set with no reference to the analysis of social need or long-term planning. The objectives of Treasury and Infrastructure are clearly wholly financial. The highlights are reactive, mostly just responding to the GST and supporting business. Asset management responsibilities clearly are not thought to include social or human or environmental assets, and there is nowhere else to find these assets properly considered, with objectives.

The accountancy or economic frame is only useful to the extent that it provides a partial analysis of the resources available to the community and the proposed means of utilising these in order, one assumes, to meet identified need and expectations with respect to the community's rights and entitlements. Our role as a legislature is to balance and reconcile these needs, rights and expectations with analysis of available resources. The success of a budget cannot be determined by some economics firm. It must be assessed in terms of how well it contributes to overall wellbeing of the community and environment now and into the future.

A low debt-equity ratio or AAA credit rating or a surplus is little consolation for one in five families in our community who are struggling to manage things as basic as heating and giving their children reasonable access to opportunities in our public education system. In the social capital document the government produced I noticed that a highlight was the Learning for Life program from the Smith Family. I am very familiar with that program. I think it is a terrible indictment of government that we have to have such a program to assist children to survive in our public school system.

The Smith Family has been running that program for some time. I was interested to see it highlighted as a government/community partnership. I checked with the Smith Family to see whether there had suddenly been an injection of funding from the government to get behind this program helping children from impoverished families survive in our so-

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