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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1571 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

That recommendation is not in the report, because we could not get to the stage where we knew whether we had a draft budget or not. I could not get a straight answer from a couple of people as to whether they wanted a draft budget or they did not. As I said, it was most frustrating but humorous.

Let me run through the recommendations as quickly as I can. The first recommendation relates to Mr Rugendyke's very genuine question as to why the government's attitude had changed from the Carnell time and why her attitude to services was different to Mr Humphries' now declared attitude to services. I will leave that recommendation as it is. I think the government should provide that explanation for members. I delude myself that I know a little bit about the accounting process, and I might have an attempt at explaining why, but it is not for me to do so and I would not presume to do so.

Recommendation 2 talks about clarity in reporting. This is not my own politics. I refer members to the Auditor-General's report on the last completed financial year's annual reports, in which he said there needs to be some commentary to go with the bottom line to clarify that bottom line, because accounting nuances can make a considerable difference. From 1995-96 to today, there is a $110 million or $120 million difference which is purely attributable to accounting. It has nothing to do with performance, nothing to do with extra money. It is to do with accounting.

Recommendation 3 is that within the array of initiatives the government ensure that there is a minimum absorption of resources by administration. One of the concerns some of the committee members, I think the majority, had was that this whole plethora of initiatives is going to generate more administration than service. We were concerned that the money, once identified and once made available, should get to the pointy end of community services.

If the government is going to claim things to be new initiatives, when really they are just additional funds allocated to something that is already happening, then they should say tell us what the additional funding is. You might see that the government is going to spend $60,000 on something, but when you ask about it you find that the program already exists and that a bit of extra money is being made available for it. It looks good if you stack up a whole pile of things and call them new initiatives.

One of the disturbing features of the CTEC contract to move to Brindabella Park is that it was signed for 10 years. That is a rather long horizon for an accommodation contract. It virtually commits another three governments to maintaining that lease. We think that is rather long for what the private sector does. We include a recommendation in relation to government contracts and not exposing future taxpayers to escalating costs because the contract is inadequate. You can refer to the Bruce contract being inadequate. You can look at the two car races. Both AVESCO and the NCA seem able to dictate to us that we spend extra money.

There is a recommendation about the centenary of federation monument. We heard that the design concept was the idea of the head of the Chief Minister's Department. We thought that the local artist community might want a crack at it.

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