Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1027 ..

unemployment were present in the previous Government's life, particularly the appallingly high trend in youth unemployment in this Territory. The low level of growth in the ACT economy relative to the rest of Australia was a feature of at least the last two years of the Follett Government’s administration. It is outrageous to have anyone opposite suggesting that these things suddenly are the product of the last three months. That is a scandalous suggestion. I would even go as far as to say that it is a shameful suggestion. People are trying to avoid the responsibility which they never acknowledged and took on their own shoulders during the period that they were in government.

Mr Speaker, I would say to members again: Do not get too hung up about the particular terms of the Supply Bill. The Bill is a provisional measure which will be followed by the budget with the detailed strategy for the 1995-96 year. That is a tried and true path which has been used by every government in the country for many years. Only recently have we moved to a trend of having budgets in June. Indeed, we hope that next year we will be able to deliver a budget in June as well. That is, unfortunately, something we cannot do on this particular occasion. I hope, Mr Speaker, that members do not get too caught up in the minutiae of that process.

MR WOOD (4.28): I say thank you to Mr Humphries for the lecture on what this Supply Bill is all about. I can remember someone in the former Opposition - I will not mention names - who tried to double these figures in one debate and say how wrong things were and how badly the Government was going. That was their simple understanding of it. This is an important measure and it is not easy to follow what is happening. I think that says all that needs to be said. I think the Government probably has the message by now, despite Mr Humphries's rhetoric.

There is a further most important question that I would ask, and I would ask the Chief Minister to respond. I do not know whether she is still to be called Treasurer when she comes back with her reply in this debate. Does she propose similar changes or any changes to the budget? It is certainly the case that the budget sets out the detail. We read the budget and we understand, with some difficulty sometimes, exactly what is to happen. The budget - there have been six by now - has been refined year after year. That process has improved as a result of the reports of the estimates committees. The budget is, I believe, a much more intelligible document now than it was when we first started in this Assembly. I would ask the Chief Minister to respond most carefully. Does she propose any changes to the way the budget is to be presented?

MR CONNOLLY (4.29): Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the press gallery is vacant this afternoon. This is probably seen as a boring machinery process of government, but it is of enormous importance. We are talking about some $658m worth of public moneys, and there is a clear view on the part of this Assembly that members have not been well served by the level of information that has been provided by the Treasurer. I think there would be the - - -

Mrs Carnell: Nobody had asked for one bit. Not one person had come to me and asked for any information.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .