Page 2369 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
were still outstanding. A further five were answered by 12 pm yesterday, leaving seven unanswered. In accordance with standing order 253A, I am also tabling a schedule listing those questions taken on notice that were not answered by 12 pm on 29 July 2019.
For me, as a member for Kurrajong and a member of the opposition, what stood out on the first day of hearings, the community and industry day, was the frustration being felt by so many community groups across Canberra—frustration with a government that constantly fails to consult, fails to listen and fails to address their needs.
In particular, as is reflected in a number of recommendations in the report, many community groups raised concerns about the government’s grant application processes on which they spend a large portion of their volunteer time to maintain funding for only one year. The committee recommends that the government look at ways to streamline these processes and provide longer term funding options for these groups in order to enhance the financial viability of many volunteer organisations that do such fantastic work throughout our community.
What struck me when I first read the budget papers this year was the incredibly overtly political nature and tone taken throughout the budget. This was also something that was picked up in the report by the independent economic advisers. As was rightly noted by Pegasus Economics:
There is a new and overtly political tone in this year’s main ACT Budget Paper in Budget Paper 3 that has not been apparent in past ACT Budget Papers.
In particular, there are numerous references to the coalition government at the commonwealth level in several places in Budget Paper 3. Pegasus Economics states:
It appears rather incongruous for the ACT Government to be both disparaging as well as demanding greater engagement on the part of the Commonwealth Government. The political commentary in Budget Paper 3 is unbecoming for a small jurisdiction that wants to be taken seriously.
Budget papers should give a true, accurate, apolitical representation of the state of the books, free from political spin and the cut and thrust of the ideological battlefield. While I accept that there is an inherently political aspect to any budget, in that it sets out the priority areas, expenditure and policy objectives of the government of the day, this can and should be presented without political overtones, as is done in every other jurisdiction.
Just like the Chief Minister’s outburst about light rail in the days following the 2019 federal election, sections of the budget papers read like someone having a childish and petulant dummy spit because he did not get the election result he desired. I would like to extend my thanks to Pegasus Economics for their continued engagement with the committee, despite the unprofessionalism shown by the Chief Minister in responding to their budget analysis early in the hearings.
Unfortunately, I am disappointed, but certainly not surprised, to see the tax and spend agenda of this Labor-Greens government in this budget. This is a government that has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video