Page 3102 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: I think Mr De Domenico is confusing a couple of issues here and I would like to enlighten him, if I can. There is no doubt whatsoever that the ACT Government's capital works budget does support a number of jobs and, as was accurately stated in the budget leaflet last year, that figure was around 3,400. As is accurately stated in the budget leaflet this year, the figure for this year is around 3,000.
In devising our capital works budget, particularly this year, a somewhat stringent year for the Territory, we were aware of what I believe is the need to take out some of the peaks and troughs which have been a feature of the construction industry in Canberra over many years and which I believe are really counterproductive. My aim is to have a construction industry that is strong and healthy and sustainable. We do not want those peaks and troughs. I would rather have all peaks; but, as the peaks were invariably followed by troughs, I do not think that is a good scheme.
In looking at the capital works budget for this year, the Government was aware that there was increased activity in the Commonwealth public sector on capital works. Members will be aware, for instance, of the York Park project - a major project - the new Australian Geological Survey Organisation building, which is in the current Federal budget, and so on. The Government was also aware that there is an increase in some major constructions by the private sector. Just one example is the permanent casino currently under construction; another major development is the Harcourt Hill development out in Gungahlin. I did not consider this year that our capital works budget needed to make the same kind of effort as we have in previous years to consciously increase the amount of employment in that industry. As to the level of the capital works budget this year, I believe that we have taken due account of the overall level of activity in the ACT construction industry. We have also taken due account of the affordability of our own program in very straitened circumstances.
The second part of Mr De Domenico's question related, I think, to reductions in the ACT Administration. I think members should understand that the prime purpose, the reason for being, of the ACT Administration is not of itself to employ people who might be otherwise employed. It does fulfil that role, but that is not its prime purpose. The prime purpose of the ACT Administration is to deliver to the people of this Territory the policies, the services, the functions of the government of the day, and, again in these straitened circumstances, to perform that delivery task in the most efficient, most effective and leanest way possible.
That is the reason why in our budget this year we have looked very hard at the cost of what the Government does. In looking at that cost, we have taken a number of measures to make reductions in the cost. I think members opposite in their heart of hearts do understand that. I can forgive them for making a political point here, but I do not think they should confuse those two issues, and I hope that I have added to the sum of their knowledge.
MR DE DOMENICO: Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. First of all, I thank the Chief Minister. I asked her about only the public works program, but she did offer an answer on the public service.
Ms Follett: You did. I have it written down - public service redundancies.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .