Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2757 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (3.36): Mr Speaker, for the information of members, I present the following paper:
Estimates 2000-2001-Select Committee-Reports-Appropriation Bill 2000-2001 and the Appropriation Bill 1999-2000 (No 3), dated June 2000, including a dissenting report and additional comments and a further dissenting report (presented 27 June 2000)-Government response.
I move:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
I make it clear at the outset that the government is disappointed with many aspects of the reports of the Select Committee on Estimates, and in particular the committee's approach towards the draft budget process. Overall, I think, a very poor job.
The committee has criticised the draft budget process, even though the draft budget process was put in place because that is what the Assembly wanted. The committee has suggested that the government has somehow abrogated its responsibility for developing the budget, and has complained about the lack of time to undertake consultation with the community.
One can always rely on those opposite to whinge and complain but never offer anything constructive as an alternative. No ideas, no direction, no hope. This was the most comprehensive community consultation process that a government-not just in the ACT-has ever undertaken, and yet the committee has failed to recognise it.
The committee had 10 weeks to consider the draft budget and report back to the Assembly. This is more time than the Estimates Committee gets for consideration of the Appropriation Bill, and it is certainly more time than the government had to respond to the committee's reports and incorporate those in the final budget.
Ms Carnell: You mean a couple of days?
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, a lot longer than that last segment. The committee failed to recognise that a number of initiatives announced by the government in the final budget were the direct result of the consultation process. That is why the final budget was different from the draft. We listened and responded but still the opposition complained.
I would like to recall the shadow Treasurer's comments that this was a very good year to be Treasurer. Might I say then that this was also a good year to be shadow Treasurer. The government undertook the most inclusive approach ever towards its budget. Here was an opportunity for those opposite, and the shadow Treasurer in particular, to work cooperatively and address the issues the community wants us collectively to address. Here was an opportunity for those opposite to be part of the solutions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .