Page 2433 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.2—ACT Executive, $5,042,000 (payments on behalf of the territory), totalling $5,042,000.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (12.00): There is not too much I have to say on this item. It is a relatively modest item in the scheme of things and the variations are not major. There are just two points I would raise, however, in the context of the previous debate on item 1.1.
It is worth noting that the payment for expenses on behalf of the territory reflecting an increase of some $293,000 from the previous year is primarily due to increased funding for the provision of additional strategic advice to the executive. I would certainly be most pleased if the Chief Minister and Treasurer were able to explain to us what the circumstances are that have prompted an increase of a third of a million dollars in strategic advice to the executive.
When you hear the dissertations we have just heard from Mrs Dunne and others about the way in which members here struggle to do their job with a modest allowance of about $5,900 a year, yet with a stroke of a pen the executive is able to bring in another nearly $300,000 for strategic advice and then a further $147,000 due to projected increases in staffing, and of course increases as a result of that in superannuation, it begs the question.
I am not going to labour this a long time. It is a small amount in the overall outlays for the ACT, but raises a few interesting questions as to what the objective is and what the needs are here that have prompted this increase. I will leave it on that note.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.02): The 2006-07 budget was delayed due to the need to complete and then take into account the functional review of the ACT budget. It has been made very clear that this budget has taken on board the recommendations of that review and the significant and surprising impact on housing, education and environment protection services, among others, as a consequence of that.
The terms of reference of the functional review make it clear that its brief is to report to the executive. As we all know, executive documents are protected and are not required to be released, even under freedom of information legislation. But that does not mean that they have to remain protected or secret. The executive could obviously choose to release the review, in whole or edited for appropriate material, if it were committed to transparency and to bringing Canberra people along with it as it seeks to make major changes.
In the absence of full information, however, we have rumour, speculation and distrust because this is what happens when information is withheld: rumour has a field day. On the functional review, everyone has an opinion. This is a tone that is gaining weight daily, but it is so mysterious that even MLAs have to resort to speculation in attempts to discern its contents.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .