Page 1702 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
non-government schools; better management of public housing debt; restoration and refurbishment of the Albert Hall; reporting on waste in relation to the Belconnen to Civic busway; and releasing documents relating to the indigenous healing farm proposal at Kama where the Chief Minister stepped in very late in the process and about which there are a number of concerns. I will have more to say about that later.
Another important recommendation is that the government table the functional review. It has consistently and belligerently refused to release that report on the spurious grounds that it was a report to cabinet. We made some other sensible recommendations, for example, no longer taxing the club industry as it is really struggling, and giving a commitment that it will not increase taxes for four years, which is sensible. The club industry provides entertainment for tens of thousands of Canberrans at moderate and reasonable rates, and it is an essential part of our community. I commend the report and especially the opposition’s dissenting and additional comments.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.51): As the member on the estimates committee who does not belong to the opposition or the government, I start by saying that on the whole I found the estimates process this year to be quite a useful process and, general speaking, especially when we got to the deliberative meetings, quite a consensual approach was taken by members. While, of course, the additional comments indicate that quite a lot of recommendations did not get a guernsey, there was still a rather large amount of agreement—something like 66 recommendations agreed to by three different parties and five members.
I want to make some general comments about my approach to this budget and the conclusions that I come to after the estimates process, which gave me and the other members a chance to explore particular issues and details that we were interested in. First of all, I think it is impossible to talk about this year’s budget without reference to last year’s budget. Last year’s budget really dealt a blow to our community and also a blow to trust and faith in a majority Labor government to deliver what people had elected that government to do. It is very clear that last year’s budget dealt a lot of blows. I would have thought that the government would have been interested in monitoring the impact of the funding cuts and other decisions that came with last year’s budget, and would use this year’s budget as a correction, to fix it, to tweak around the edges.
What we know is pretty much anecdotal. As members we hear from constituents or from community organisations. I particularly commend the estimates process this year which, as usual, heard evidence and received the submissions that government took from community organisations prior to the development of the budget. But this year that was included in the estimates report. Normally those things inform members and help us frame our questions, but this year a whole chapter is devoted to the community sector’s evidence and submissions. I hope that will be a continuing practice.
It is partly from the evidence from the community organisations that I have come to make my specific recommendations. Remember that a lot of the decisions forecasted by last year’s budget did not take place until after the budget, so it was appropriate to monitor them at this year’s estimates hearing to see how last year’s budget was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .