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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2895 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The Labor Party believes that the Government has an important role to play in creating an environment conducive to private sector investment and private sector employment growth.

At the same time, we in this Assembly and the community have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are effectively utilised. We are all familiar with the pressures on public expenditure and the competition for public money. When significant amounts of money and forgone revenue are involved in the scheme, it is appropriate that from time to time there be some accountability process to look at whether money is being well spent, whether we are getting the best possible value for money and whether we are using resources to achieve the maximum effect. That is the point of this reference.

I notice that the Chief Minister has circulated some proposed amendments to the motion. One of those takes the inquiry back to look at the operation of the industry assistance program prior to the election of her Government, and the other nominates some specific things that the inquiry should look at, namely, economic and employment benefits for the ACT generated by the two schemes and possible measures to improve the operation and scope of the business incentive scheme to promote greater economic and employment growth in the ACT. They are obviously things which I believe would have been part of any inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of these schemes, and I am happy to accept Mrs Carnell's amendments. I am also happy to accept her amendment that we also look at the operation of the schemes prior to the election of her Government. I initially set the 1 March 1995 date with a view to trying to contain the scope of the inquiry, but I accept that looking at some of the earlier assistance may provide us with a longer-term perspective of the effectiveness of the schemes. Therefore, I am happy to accept that amendment, too.

With those amendments by the Chief Minister, this motion ought to be something that can enjoy the broad support of the Assembly. I understand that there will be considerable sensitivity in the work involved in this inquiry. I also understand that the scope of this inquiry is potentially large and that there will have to be some discipline by the Public Accounts Committee to contain that scope. But I believe that this is an important exercise, and I believe that those sensitivities can be respected. Parliaments and parliamentary committees are used to dealing with the sensitivities associated with arrangements of this sort. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee will be able to conduct an inquiry and produce a report of benefit to the Assembly.

MRS LITTLEWOOD (11.42): I rise this morning as I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I would just like to express my disappointment at the way in which this has been done. Since coming into this place I have endeavoured to conduct myself in a dignified manner and to treat all in this place with a certain courtesy. However, I was advised about this through a letter. Mr Whitecross did speak to Ms Horodny about it, but did not have the courtesy to discuss it with me as a member of the committee. I find that somewhat disappointing because I endeavour, as I said, to treat people on the committee in a bipartisan way. Obviously, I have not been treated like that, and I just wish to express my displeasure at that.

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