Page 2914 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on duty to keep potential vandals at bay. These figures appeared in the Canberra Times today and very clearly proved my case. That ambit claim, like so many others, failed. The accurate costs of reopening were determined and provided, and the schools are operating very well indeed.
The passage of time further proves my point. These so-called essential works were placed, as they should have been, in the program of cyclical maintenance. Far from being essential for reopening, they remain on the maintenance list waiting for their priority to be high enough to secure funding. Case proven. The works have not yet been done; they do not need to be done.
The newspaper article mentions a further letter in which I instructed the department to absorb the costs into the department's general program. That is exactly what I have explained. That is where the funds for that maintenance should be provided, and in due course will be. The Canberra Times did not mention, either out of Carleton-style reporting or because they were not sent the material, a minute from the secretary to me on 17 June, which was attached to that letter they quoted, advising this course of action. When I went back to the secretary after my discussion with the Chief Minister, he came back with an answer that showed how it should be done. Surprise, surprise; he came back with some more accurate figures that deleted that range of items that I have mentioned. He showed that it could be done. The Canberra Times did not quote that minute from the secretary to me, though it was attached to the letter that they did quote. I think they preferred to suggest some sort of sinister intention.
The secretary's minute of 17 June, to which I just referred, and by now a sensible approach to government, followed the first refusal of that ambit claim. I think we realise that this approach of departments to inflate their bids on new policy proposals, the means of funding the reopenings, is not new. It is a long tradition in this town and one of the reasons why people like the ACT Treasurer scrutinise proposals so closely. What this whole process shows is good government in action. The Canberra Times article really demonstrates that, though the headline is quite deliberately misleading. It should have read "Department inflates figures". I could provide something a little more sensational, but I will not. I have used the word "department". I suppose I am not referring to the department as a whole. I guess I am referring to the secretary of the department at the time, who carried this argument and with whom I had my dealings.
The matter did not stop there. The secretary carried on his argument after the Chief Minister answered the question referred to today by the Leader of the Opposition. He did so by suggesting that the response was not accurate. Obviously, I paid close attention to this, recognising the significance; but once again he was wrong, being more concerned about his case than the Government's intentions. It seems that this case is still being argued, whether by him or by someone else. I repeat that this matter is quite clear. It is a case of good government in action. It shows a Treasurer and a government being careful and accurate in their scrutiny of expenditure, being concerned about the provision of quality education and being responsive to community interests.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .