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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1175 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Those are the issues that were being put before the committee. Why, Mr Speaker? Because members of this place said that they wanted that opportunity. Ms Tucker in particular, I recall, said that there needed to be an opportunity to look at the total picture. So we provided that opportunity in the budget parameters-

Mr Stanhope: Why didn't you put that in the draft budget?

MR HUMPHRIES: No, this is the stage before, Mr Stanhope. In the broad parameters exercise we were taking one step back from that stage and inviting the Assembly committee concerned to look at how we might break up that pie and how we might make other decisions essential in putting together a budget. But I defy anybody to read that report and be assisted on any of those matters.

With great respect, the opposition which some members in this place feel towards the draft budget process is so profound that it has prevented a committee from dealing with the issue which the Assembly assigned to it, which was to examine the broad parameters for the 2001-2002 budget. I think it would have been useful-I certainly would have found it useful as Treasurer-to have feedback on those matters, but I did not get it.

No doubt, when the budget comes down there will be criticism of the government because we have done certain things. If the Assembly committee which was charged with the task of overviewing the budget's broad direction could not be bothered complying with the Assembly's terms of reference in that respect, then we can hardly be blamed for overlooking the things that members of this place subsequently regard as being important.

I think it is another example of the decline of the effectiveness of the Assembly's committee process. Instead of inquiring into the broad parameters of the budget, the committee strayed off into irrelevancies such as whether community groups should be able to consult directly with the government-recommendations 2 and 3. Again, that is about the process, not about the outcomes that were being sought in this exercise. Whether certain materials such as the impact of Commonwealth government policies should be incorporated into the budget papers was recommendation 9. That is edifying stuff if you are interested, but it was not what the committee was asked to do.

Other recommendations are irrelevant because they do no more than call for the government to do what it is already doing. For example, we have the profound recommendation that the government should be looking at refinancing borrowings to reduce costs. For heaven's sake, we do this continuously. Was this a filler or something? Did the committee say, "Let us find something to say so we look as though we have done our work; let us recommend that they refinance borrowings to reduce costs"? You must think we are all fools if you imagine that we do not already know that governments since Adam was a boy have been refinancing borrowings to reduce costs.

I turn to other recommendations. Here is a beauty. The committee recommends that the government should not be reducing debt to the detriment of community needs. That is very helpful, but it also reflects exactly what the government's policy has been. I particularly like recommendation 23, which calls for the government to balance the budget. That is a wonderful recommendation but again a little like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. It is of course a very good suggestion but it has already happened,

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