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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 2217 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

That makes me very anxious indeed. How do we know how much is to be cut out of a total department, what the possible outcomes can be or what the possible variances can be? It is not solely a question for management; it is at the heart of what we have seen to be wrong through the entire budget process. The fact is that this is not driven by concern for the people of the ACT; it is driven by an arbitrary bottom line figure that has nothing whatever to do with the department, with the services, with the people who run the services or with the people who need the services.

To put through random cuts which will not be spelt out in a public way means that we have absolutely no idea what this Government intends to do to the people of Canberra and how it intends to achieve its objectives. I find that totally unsatisfactory. I think it is unacceptable. The community has a right to know that 9 per cent of the services provided by the Department of Urban Services are to be cut. The community and the Assembly have a right to know which services are being targeted, why they are being targeted and what the effect will be on the people who are going to lose out on those services. At the very least, the Assembly has the right to know what options are being examined, how proposed savings can be achieved and how the people who most need protection - both the workers and the recipients of service - are being protected.

I find the comments on page 3 to be a totally unsatisfactory response. Again you are on notice that if it is not spelt out in next year's estimates the questions will persist until we know exactly what it means. The community does not accept arbitrary cuts without basis or rationale, without analysis or fair and open explanation of why things are being mark of a responsible government that it can face up to that openly and fairly. Page 8 of the response states:

However, in the case of grants to the commercial sector, the publication of full details of all grants and other forms of assistance to be made public may not be appropriate.

I also find that an appalling response. Why should government money given to the community sector, which has its own enterprises and services to run, be the subject of open scrutiny in every single detail, when money given to the commercial sector is a commercial-in-confidence secret? I do not find that acceptable. I do not think anybody else in the community would find that acceptable. It is our money. It is taxpayers' money. We are fully entitled to know who receives it, on what basis, what the acquittal of that money is and how they are going to use it.

Finally, we come to the biggest cloud of all, the ongoing debate about whether or not education has had $3.8m cut from it. If Mrs Carnell's protestations are to be believed, why is it that five teachers are being taken out of every secondary college? Why is it that every specialist in the central office has had their contract terminated? Why is it that my desk is covered with letters from people protesting against the cuts to their services? Why is it that the people who are looking to complete their Year 12 studies - the most basic education you now need to be guaranteed a job - now have to pay $1,200 for something that they could previously pay $120 for? It looks like a cut to me. It sounds like a cut to me. It feels like a cut to the people who are having services taken away.

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