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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1576 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The definitional question was never really resolved in the committee. Mr Quinlan, Mr Hargreaves and I are of the view that a budget is about full financial information, and other members of the committee are not. What is clear is that we are in agreement that the community does value the opportunity to have input about where they think need is and where expenditure should be. That is something about the process we can agree on.

The first few recommendations are important. They are about clarity and transparency of financial information. An important point came out ACTCOSS' submission: revenue-raising mechanisms need to be looked at. There needs to be a review of that matter in the ACT, because in the ACT there is a heavy emphasis on fees, fines and user charges. These are currently regressive. They need to be overhauled and made more equitable. That is particularly important, one would have thought, for a government that is trying to target disadvantage and has picked up to some degree recommendations of the poverty task force. I think that is a very important issue that needs to be picked up by this government or the next government.

Recommendation 5 is also important. It recommends that the government establish guidelines as to the length of the period for which a government department or agency should enter into a contract that binds the territory. Obviously there have been concerns about the decision to move CTEC to Brindabella Park, particularly in light of the dubious rationale for doing that, particularly in relation to transport availability and the broader question of planning and the provision of employment in the ACT.

I noticed in the Gungahlin newsletter that Gungahlin are going to run candidates in Gungahlin for Gungahlin because they are so disillusioned with what they perceive to be no commitment from anybody in this Assembly and past Assemblies to get employment going in Gungahlin. I can understand that cynicism totally. When you look at this massive development at Brindabella Park, which we covered in the Estimates Committee in some detail, it is no wonder that people are cynical enough to believe that there is no commitment at all in this Assembly to providing employment opportunities which would have social and environmental benefits for the people of Gungahlin and for the whole of the ACT.

We had a slightly amusing little exchange in estimates about the centenary of federation monument. We were interested in how the arts community was going to be involved in the quite significant expenditure to design a concept for the celebration of the centenary of federation. We were quite surprised to see that the chief executive took responsibility for the concept and that there had been no involvement of local artists. We have made a recommendation that it be opened up for the full rich, diverse and amazing talent of the artists of Canberra to come up with a celebration of federation which has artistic meaning as well as historical significance. It was quite extraordinary to members of the committee to see the chief executive happily making the decision himself. Maybe he is an artist, and maybe it is going to be fantastic, but I would have thought it should have gone out to all artists of the ACT community, not just to him-if he is an artist.

There were questions about Impulse and the suggestion that the Victorian government had made an offer. That needs to be sorted out. It was suggested that that could be looked at by the Auditor-General. Once again, the concern was that pressure was put on members of this Assembly because of the rather unhealthy situation of the states and territories bidding against each other to attract business. The potential for that pressure to

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