Page 1695 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Oppositions are often critical of budgets produced by any government in Australia; it is the nature of their business. They have a job to hold governments to account, and so must attempt to pick apart faults that may lie within budget papers and estimates. The makeup of this year’s committee was well balanced, comprising two government members, two opposition members and a crossbench member. This allowed for a fair and impartial committee process without the risk of accusations of suggested stacking or bias amongst it.
At this point I wish to thank my fellow committee members for their hard work and efforts throughout these proceedings. This year the committee sat for 12 days with a total of 22 hours of deliberative meetings. At the cessation of the hearings my committee colleagues commented that it was a far smoother process than the process last year. Last year the committee sat for a record number of 14 days and approximately 24 hours of deliberation.
It is important to inform the Assembly that on several occasions this year meetings often closed earlier than anticipated. Ministers were not recalled to the allocated spill-over times after their first appearances, as the committee agreed that all matters and output classes regarding their relevant portfolios were dealt with in a respectable timeframe. I am also pleased to inform the Assembly that the conduct of participants improved from last year. I congratulate every member of the committee and those non-committee members who lent their time to put ministers and their departmental staff under such expert scrutiny.
Only one issue of contention was raised by Mr Pratt through the Speaker, that being the issue that was dealt with this morning. I congratulate the ministers and their staff for their conduct throughout the proceedings. If it were not for their cooperation and forthcoming approach, these public hearings and deliberative meetings could have proved to have been an unnecessarily drawn out process.
I can also inform the Assembly that all 441 questions on notice have been answered. I commend the work done by ministers and their departmental staff and thank them for their efforts. This is a positive outcome as I have been advised that questions on notice in the Senate might remain unanswered for a considerable time. I also thank the many interest groups and relevant stakeholders who found the time to address the committee through their submissions and appearances at public hearings. In total there were 32 written submissions with 14 community groups and associations fronting the committee at public hearings.
On 15 and 25 June the committee met with peak organisations, community groups and other relevant stakeholders. While these groups represented a broad cross-section of the community, common concerns regarding the viability of the community sector, housing issues for low income and marginalised groups, and mental health issues were raised with the committee. In the area of community sector viability the ACT government has a stated commitment in the social plan and social compact to assist the disadvantaged members of our community.
This year no issue gained as much attention as last year’s Towards 2020 budget initiative. It was encouraging to see the committee and the community sector allowing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .