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

None . . Page.. 865 ..

we will be pursuing service competition to achieve better value for taxpayers and better quality for consumers. We have signed up to the National Competition Reform Agreement and will be vigorously pursuing appropriate change. In Queensland, the Goss Labor Government moved in this same direction some years ago, boosting the performance of many government-owned enterprises. In Western Australia, the current Government has been separating its “purchaser” and “provider” functions to introduce competition amongst potential public and private providers to deliver best practice, best quality and best price. This has been particularly evident in their transport sector.

In Victoria, competitive tendering has been a key part of the reform process and is seen as a powerful and subtle management tool, rather than a substitute for other reforms. The community has benefited in a number of ways. Contracting-out has brought more commercial relations between private and public sectors; it has provided an immediate injection of best practice; it has enabled better risk management; and it has forced government agencies to better understand their core businesses. Last year, Victoria's Treasurer, Alan Stockdale, cited an annual saving of $35m within Melbourne Water’s budget through contracting services such as information technology, engineering design and mechanical workshops. Examples can be drawn from every State.

How is this relevant to us? Why are we pursuing a reform agenda? Let us be clear, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that doing these things for the sake of doing them is a nonsense. Governments elsewhere are pursuing reform in the interests of better, more efficient and higher quality services to the community. Up until self-government, we were buffered from the economic difficulties experienced in other States. We are only now dealing with the reality of our financial situation. We cannot afford to remain isolated in Australia with an outmoded approach to public administration. The beneficiaries will be the community. We must strengthen our economy and support the continuing development of a diverse private sector. The changes I am announcing here today will help us do this.

The structure of the administration has been changed from time to time as the ACT government itself has changed. But, over the last three years, opportunities have been missed. The previous Government was content to seek across-the-board savings instead of addressing the need for structural change. Indeed, after the Follett Government's last changes to the Administrative Arrangements, there were almost as many departments serving the Government as there were departments delivering services to the community - an absolutely unbelievable situation. This misdirection of priorities was reflected in the name chosen for the ACT's separate public service, namely, the “Government Service” - something my party argued strongly against, because the public service is there to serve the community, not the government. In our first week in government, we moved quickly to create Administrative Arrangements that minimised duplication and overlap. Those arrangements also emphasised our concern to promote economic development within the Territory and the region.

Over the past three months, we have also moved quickly to repair the ACT's parlous financial situation. The legacy of the previous Government was a budget situation with a predicted revenue shortfall of $15m and a spending overrun of about $30m. The forecast was for deficits totalling around $270m over the next four years if existing policies continued. I am happy to report to the Assembly that spending has been reined in

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