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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 806 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The document states that it invites input from the public. However, that stands at odds with the fact that the document was actually produced after the deadline for public comment had passed. I am aware of other community organisations which received invitations to comment on the budget a matter of days before-and in fact even after-the deadline had passed for comment on the budget, as set out in the government's timetable. If, as it says, the document is intended to promote improved information about the major issues currently facing the ACT, in that kind of timeframe, it utterly fails to do that.

With the trenchant and sustained criticism of the former government's budget consultation process, the community, and this Assembly in particular, was led to believe that a better process might be put in its place. By no stretch of the imagination could this document be described as such.

A subsequent issue of concern to the committee was the announcement made in the media, at about the same time, that there would be a request to agencies across the whole of government to consider how a 2 per cent cut to their funding might be sustained. (Extension of time granted.)

The committee took much time in examining this issue and asked a number of questions about it. It was indicated to the committee that every agency of government would be expected to at least address the issue, but that some would ultimately be exempted from the effect of this edict, in whole or in part, by virtue of the cabinet, or perhaps the Treasurer, deciding that there was not a good case for them to sustain a cut of that size.

The committee's view was that it was illogical to hand out small amounts of money in this third appropriation bill whilst, at the same time, asking agencies to cut expenditure by 2 per cent, or some other figure, across other areas of government. The Treasurer described this process as a fairly standard part of budgetary discipline before each round of budgets. He also said it might include job cuts.

That never constituted part of the budgetary discipline of the governments in which I have been involved-the Carnell and Humphries governments. It stands in contrast to the commitment made by the present government that there would be no job cuts under a Labor government.

The committee believes that a 2 per cent across-the-board cut targets equally both efficient and inefficient agencies. The committee believes the government ought to exercise some leadership in demonstrating where it believes such cuts should more appropriately fall, based on its assessment of the performance of those agencies, as to where they can or cannot do better.

The committee noted the contrast between the decision to ask every agency to deliver a 2 per cent saving and the fact that the government had already anticipated the budget. It had announced that there would be an additional $27 million provided to education in the ACT over a period which is yet to be clearly indicated by the government. Clearly, it is impossible to deliver a promise to provide $27 million extra for education above the amount the previous government was providing if, at the same time, the government

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