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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2758 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Here was a rare opportunity for a shadow Treasurer to leave his mark, to actually make a significant difference in the direction of a government's budget. And what do we have, Mr Speaker? A baulking at the challenge that that entailed; complaints of less time; accusations of government abrogating its responsibilities; and grumblings about workload.

Mr Speaker, here lies the difference between this government and those opposite. The government sees an opportunity to improve things, to serve the community better, and the government grabs it. Those opposite are given an opportunity on a platter, and they drop it. As I said, no ideas and no hope.

I might take this opportunity to refer back to the 1999-2000 committee's report. That report had asserted that the territory is facing a "growing social deficit". The committee had attributed this to "the government's single focus on a balanced budget regardless of the social implications".

The results of that so-called "single focus" are there today for all to see. And while the government never agreed that there was a social deficit, now when the government makes an investment in social capital in the territory the committee fails to recognise it. This reflects the committee's narrow political agenda and its total failure to act in a way that actually contributes something positive to the broader community.

Notwithstanding the committee's failure to fulfil its role, the government has accepted 25 of the committee's 41 recommendations in full or in part-and that is quite an achievement, given the work of the committee-not because they offered anything new or better but mainly because they asked the government to do what it was already doing or planning to do.

In other cases we provided the information the committee had asked for. We have also provided comprehensive reasons why we reject the other 13 recommendations contained in the report. One recommendation had been responded to at the hearings and one is directed at the standing committee on urban services-to undertake an inquiry into the funding of an environmental budget. The government has, however, responded to this issue.

There are a number of other comments and observations in the report which the government has responded to, either to clarify a misconception or to provide the government's position on the issue. In particular, I point out to members the failure of the committee to address or even recognise the consequences of several recommendations. With no apparent thought to cost, the majority of the committee felt free to recommend increases in expenditure for: nursing staff, recommendation 18; the dental program, recommendation 22; the Blind Society, recommendation 23; the Down Syndrome Association, recommendation 24; Disability Services, recommendation 25; accommodation for young indigenous offenders, recommendation 28; Care Inc's legal service, recommendation 32; and PALM, recommendation 38.

Whilst individually each of these may be worthy causes, the committee failed to mention how they should be funded. Bear in mind, Mr Speaker, that the committee had a chance to find the money to fund each of these proposals, because members of the committee each sat on standing committees which reviewed the draft budget.

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