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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2841 ..

I move:

That the Assembly takes note of the paper.

Mr Speaker, this budget delivers an aggregate surplus over the life of the budget and forward estimates and sets a prudent approach to expenditure while making provision for investment in our infrastructure. The Estimates Committee made 57 recommendations and the government has responded to all the recommendations of the committee with the exception of a recommendation that is a matter for future estimates committees and the Assembly, that is, recommendation 2.

The government is extremely proud of the budget. I note with great satisfaction that the government has delivered a budget that has received the committee’s endorsement of its passage through the Legislative Assembly. The government thanks the committee for its support of the budget. The government also thanks the committee for its deliberations and its time.

Whilst it is the committee’s prerogative as to what issues it wishes to pursue, one has to wonder whether it was time well spent. It is disappointing that the committee has seen fit to utilise valuable time to investigate and make recommendations on such trivial matters as typographical errors in the editing of the budget papers and the calculation of percentage movements in performance measures. Might I add that I think there are a few typographical errors in the committee’s report. The latter is an issue directly relevant to the annual reports, not to the budget papers. Further, I note that the committee made a number of recommendations about the existing performance measures framework, with little consideration of the supplementary discussion paper on this very issue.

Mr Speaker, the most significant concern relates to an apparent lack of understanding of the legislative provisions, processes and bases of some agencies’ budgets. For example, the committee has recommended that the Chief Minister direct the Commissioner for Public Administration on certain matters. In making this recommendation, the committee does not appear to have taken into account the extent of the powers that the Chief Minister has under the Public Sector Management Act to direct the commissioner and on what matters he could do so.

In recommendation 9, the committee has recommended an increase in the appropriation for the Auditor-General’s Office for the review of performance statements. The committee has failed to recognise that there is an established process under the legislation for setting the Auditor-General’s budget. The office’s budget was increased in line with a proposal received from the public accounts committee. The Estimates Committee also does not appear to have understood that the performance statements form part of the annual financial statements under the Financial Management Act and the associated costs are directly charged to agencies rather than appropriated.

In a number of cases the committee’s approach has been, effectively, to micromanage government activity. The government, of course, welcomes the committee’s views and the Assembly’s input in this regard. Notwithstanding these disappointments, Mr Speaker, I once again thank the committee for its work and support of the budget. I commend the government’s response to the Assembly.

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