Page 2143 - Week 06 - Thursday, 26 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from where they were in 2004 to now. We are still a poor performer relative to the other states in a number of areas, particularly on our case-mix calculations. It has improved, but we have a long way to go before we achieve satisfactory outcomes.
I am amazed at the number of teachers that continue to complain to me about distressing issues related to the schools, about discipline issues, about their morale and about the lack of support that they feel is forthcoming.
This government should also, as a high priority, exercise restraint and not spend for the sake of spending. The people that are best able to spend money are not government; it is the people who earn that money. When the government is in a position to provide tax relief, as this one is, it should do so. It should not respond to extra revenue by automatically looking for new ways to spend it.
One of the major issues that Mr Seselja touched on that arose in debate on this budget was the large amounts of money earmarked for capital works. The issue of capital works is a very important one. It would have been very worth while if we had been able to have a serious discussion about the government’s ability to deliver these projects, both in terms of timeliness and in terms of budget compliance. In questions on this issue, the opposition has quite rightly pointed out that there are a lot of rollovers of capital works appropriations, and I think the government has also quite rightly pointed out that this is not necessarily unusual.
Unfortunately, this debate has been marred by evasiveness from the government. I was particularly dismayed that the Chief Minister went out of his way to avoid answering questions by the opposition leader about the government’s capacity to deliver on its capital works program. Throughout the entire exchange on this issue, the Chief Minister simply set about attacking through a straw man argument, claiming that the opposition were merely criticising the ACT building industry. Whether or not this was the case, which I do not think really was the basis of their complaints, we need to hear more than just the Chief Minister’s grandstanding against the opposition.
We were treated to long-winded, verbose answers in which the Chief Minister repeatedly went into the straw man argument to avoid having to discuss the details of their record on capital expenditure and their projections for new expenditure. Avoiding questions on the government’s ability to deliver its capital works program is a poor reflection on the estimates proceedings and the respect this government shows for accountability to the Assembly and the people of the ACT. (Second speaking period taken.) In order to examine whether these rollovers or delays are a cause of serious concern, we need a Chief Minister who is willing to answer questions about this issue when asked. Instead, we have a Chief Minister who concocts and argues with straw man arguments to avoid important discussion which displeases him.
I would also, in the context of this Treasury discussion, again repeat my criticism of the percent for art scheme, which I believe to be an excessive and wasteful approach to the spending of public money, and I find many people in the arts community feel this is a disproportionate weighting of one section of the arts community as a result of this policy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .