Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2318 ..
MR SMYTH
(continuing):are doing what you are meant to be doing is not very useful. With examples like that in mind, it is really important that we get the indicators right.
Something else that was consistent across the questioning of the ministers was their inability to answer detail on initiatives. To the questions "Within what time frame?"and "What will the effect be?"a lot of it was: "We will work that out."The enhanced government media centre was a classic: the Chief Minister was unable to tell us how many officers there might be and what they would be doing. You have to doubt whether we should pass initiatives like that when the detail is so sparse.
The proposed car-parking levy is another good example. We were told that the number of car parks was somewhere between 15,000 and 24,000, with a suggestion that the final number might be around 16,800. We were unable to get answers as to how they had determined that number, what work was being done, what concessions would be available and how it would be administered.
Instead of working out a policy from a policy sense of moving forward, the agenda was simply revenue raising, in that we were given a number. When the final number of possible targets was determined, number A would be divided by number B to give answer C, and therefore life would go on. But that is not good policy making.
Looking across all the initiatives, we may have some doubts about a large number of them. One that springs to mind is the own goal kicked by Ms MacDonald when we were asking about carers, where there was extra money. The extra money was simply to carry that to the end of the financial year. In the out year the money was to do the evaluation.
There is a recommendation in the Estimates Committee document that says money for evaluation should be included in pilot or new programs as a matter of course, so that adequate funding can then be identified that would be ongoing. I could go on with any number of examples, but members know themselves the examples they asked about and the answers that they got.
The sustainability of this budget must be severely questioned, and there are two clear objectives: the outyears for-
At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MR SMYTH
: The sustainability of the budget must be questioned. Two good examples of that are CTEC funding and the sustainability of the hospital in the outyears. If we look at CTEC on page 328 of Budget Paper 4, we will see the reduction of the $4 million funding that they have had over the last four or five years to cover the V8 car race. But in the outyears it drops from $16 million down to $12 million. That is not sustainable. They have had the benefit of the extra $4 million in this year, and that was gratefully received and has been used. But in the outyears it drops to $12 million. It is a drop of a quarter, and you have to ask whether that is sustainable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .