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

None . . Page.. 1039 ..

good enough. It is simply not good enough. We will certainly be expecting a far greater level, or at least the level that we have had in the past, of detail to enable this Assembly to make proper scrutiny of the Government's financial management and their financial records. Mr Speaker, whilst we will not oppose the Schedule, I think that it would well behove the Government to take very seriously the comments that have been made, not just by Labor but by the Independents and the Greens. If you expect to get a budget through you are going to have to do a great deal better.

MR MOORE (4.46): In continuing this theme, I would like to try to explain to the Chief Minister why it is that we find this sort of thing distressing. In her new Schedule there is a reference to Division 40, Chief Minister's Department, and $69,540,000 for recurrent funding. I take that figure and compare it with what is in the Supply Act 1994-95. Under “Chief Minister's Department”, which at that stage was a much smaller department, there is $3m for Government and Coordination, $4m for Economic Development, and $593,000 for Audit Services. For the Department of Public Administration, which I understand is now part of that Chief Minister's Department, there is another $7m in Division 40. In Division 50, ACT Financial Management, there is $25m. What concerns us, Chief Minister, is that there is nothing now to tell us what is going to happen or what amounts of money might be moved from one program to another. Had we had this Supply Bill at program level, we would know that it is not your current intention to move, for example, $5m out of Financial Management and slip it across into Government and Coordination, or something along those lines. When actions like that are taken, we believe that it is entirely appropriate that they be scrutinised. Let me make it very clear that I am not objecting to that kind of action being taken provided it is open and available and we can see it.

Let me take another example, the Department of Urban Services, for which you have $91m. It strikes me that $91m is quite a lot of money. Not to have that broken down is particularly interesting. When I go back to the Supply Act 1994-95, for public transport there is $19m, for city services there is $24m, for fire and emergency services there is roughly $4m, and for public works and services there is about $68m. I have included a combination of capital and recurrent in some of those figures. The point I am making is that we could see, program by program, in the Supply Act 1994-95 where the money was spent. We can see whether money has been moved, or is intended to be moved, from city services to public transport, or from public transport to fire and emergency services. We ought to have that information in front of us. That is the sort of problem we are dealing with.

One more example, just to try to drive the message home, is the Department of Education and Training, $122m, which includes both recurrent and capital. In 1994-95, for the Canberra Institute of Technology there was $20m-odd, government schooling $86m, non-government schooling $27m, and training about $600,000. Mr Speaker, the same question applies. Is it the Government's intention to slip $1m or $2m out of the non-government schooling sector and slip it into the government schooling sector? It is not that I take an objection to that, I want you to understand; but I think it is reasonable that the Assembly know and understand.

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