Page 2303 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The lack of detail of a plan to get us out of debt and deficit imposed by this budget was so concerning that the committee recommends:
That the ACT government provide to the Assembly substantiation for its revenue predictions, detailed information regarding efficiency dividend application, and justification for how revenue and expenditure will be reconciled to return the budget to surplus within the specified seven years.
That is recommendation 17. I think that is a critical recommendation. The committee was showing its scepticism about what is being presented. It is extraordinary in fact that the committee would have to make such a recommendation in relation to a budget. You would think that these things would have been adequately explained but the committee concluded differently.
Ms Gallagher: I think you were asleep at that point, Zed.
MR SESELJA: Apparently the entire committee was. The Deputy Chief Minister interjects, but this is a finding of the committee. Of course, she attacks the entire committee again.
It is important to remember that these factors are not hypothetical; they relate to the actual delivery of real services. When asked about the imposition of the efficiency dividend on Health, for example, Ms Gallagher “did not rule out ACT Health being subject to an allocation of those savings”. Furthermore, the report states:
The Committee notes a significant difficulty in reconciling the stated intent to impose an efficiency dividend with the proposition that health expenditure would simultaneously grow. No detail was provided to explain this.
In the area of business, the committee was concerned about the lack of “sufficiently detailed information on business and industry development programs”. The committee went on:
As presented, the information in Budget Paper 4 does not disclose the picture with respect to funding these programs.
Once again, transparency!
The government was unable or unwilling to stipulate where savings will come from or what services will be cut to end the need for deficits. It does not substantiate where the growth in revenue will come from or upon what basis it was calculated. The theme is clear, consistent and undeniable. This budget does not contain a plan for recovery.
The second theme to emerge was the lack of regard to due process and the misuse of public assets for partisan purposes. We see one example of this in relation to the Calvary deal. The Canberra Liberals have expressed grave concerns about the way in which the proposed purchase of the Calvary hospital has been conducted and my shadow health minister, Jeremy Hanson, has been leading the charge to open up this process to proper scrutiny.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .