Page 1705 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, I also had a team of very dedicated staff conduct a critical analysis of the budgets in my three portfolio areas, particularly, but in others generally, map the forecast benefits of each expenditure line and attempt to find all the new services, benefits and programs that my constituents could plan for from later in 2007. Sadly though, I can report that all this effort has but come to nought. As the member for Molonglo, I am not convinced from the findings of the estimates hearings that the government has the financial credentials to benefit the economy of the ACT. While I would not be so naive as to drop my guard and expect those opposite to admit to sundry economic or political failings and weakness, the clear fact is that the appropriation process is now well out in the public domain. It will be the people of Canberra who will ultimately make up their minds as to the success or failure of the budget which, of course, we will be debating next week.
Also, I found it quite strange and interesting, and I raised this in the committee, that the chair chose not to include certain sections covered in the budget such as a strong emphasis on business and economic development, tourism, sport—things that one would think the government, with a huge fat surplus that we have now, would be forecasting that it would be putting back into the community. But obviously the government is still not keen on focusing on business and economic management.
A year ago Ms Porter, who was then chair, in tabling the 2006-07 estimates report, said things like “Strong and visionary budget”, “Permits the government to deliver excellence”, “Ongoing commitments to health” and so on. Members on this side of the chamber drew attention to members’ incompetence, breach of procedures, ministerial performance, errors in budget papers, lack of key performance indicators and ever-changing budget formats. I repeat that I am talking about last year, but sadly again, despite Ms Porter’s undying loyalty to her party and to her leader, I have to ask: what has changed in the past 12 months?
The Westminster conventions that guide this place have clear foundations outlining ministerial conduct, effective performance and probity. Each of us is charged on oath with attending to our duties with diligence. It is this area of ministerial behaviour and conduct which proved to be a major cause for concern in our hearings. It was disappointing that some ministers treated the whole process with arrogant disdain, with one minister going beyond the pale with his unacceptable behaviour. Sadly, that was a repeat performance. It is not something that has just cropped up this year. A couple of ministers refused to answer questions despite the attendance of departmental officials who were very keen and eager to provide any information and advice needed. While some took questions on notice, to date I believe—and we have raised this in our report and I stand corrected—we still do not have the answers or information promised by some ministers. Perhaps they are in the mail.
The estimates hearings reveal that there has been an absence of discernable progress in open and accountable reporting, quality management or strategic planning promised from the members opposite. We will have to go as far back as 2001 when Mr Stanhope made very strong stances on this, as he did in May this year. Openness and accountability do not seem to be gaining much momentum with the Stanhope government. Did the estimates process reveal that this budget will carry the Australian Capital Territory’s financial and economic credibility forward to meet the visions and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .