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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (26 March) . . Page.. 610 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

and now we have this document "Governing Canberra". Although I am also disappointed with the contents of the report, I am pleased that it has set up some forum for debate, and it would be remiss of me to point out all the things that this report does not do without acknowledging this fact.

The ACT is in a quite unique position to develop some innovative systems for government, and we have seen some good models such as the Community Law Reform Committee. As far as government goes, this means not only more transparent and consultative government but also government that takes environmental and social responsibility seriously. The ACT already has a number of consultative mechanisms, which may not be perfect but they are there. The Social Policy Committee's report on community consultation discusses some of these forums. I hope that, for the sake of efficiency if nothing else, this task force looks at the work that has been done in the Social Policy Committee in this area and other reports on the issue. We could have a less formal process, more accessibility to Ministers and less Executive power. Maybe we do need a fundamental overhaul of the whole system of government, but I would suggest that the budget process should be part of this. "Governing Canberra" makes no mention at all of the existing advisory councils or, quite surprisingly, of community councils.

Talking about community consultation and this Government's initiatives in the area, I will make comment now on their consultation process for the budget. If "Governing Canberra" has been seen to be a superficial and disappointing response, then the outcomes statement, which has been presented as "the focus of the consultation process" for the budget which will "set policy for the budget", is also unbelievable. For example, if we take the environment outcome, it says that "the ACT environment is clean, safe and managed efficiently and sustainable". What possible use is that statement to anyone in the community who wishes to have meaningful input into the budget? What is the timeframe? Where are the strategies? How much will they cost? What are the priorities in this strategy? It is a very basic part of community consultation - any kind of consultation - that information is provided to then discuss. As I have said before, if we are evaluating performance rather than focusing on inputs, a lot more work needs to be done on working out in much more detail the outcomes that we want and making sure that our performance measures are up to scratch.

This report seems to be as much about the Government's reform agenda for the public sector as it is about genuine changes to the way that government works in the ACT. Once again we are told of the benefits of introducing market mechanisms into service delivery; for example, separating funder from provider functions. We are told that there should not be a confusion over funder and provider roles; in fact, they should be so separated that one Minister should not even be responsible for the funder and provider mechanisms within one portfolio. This sounds like a recipe for chaos. In question time, I would address my question without notice to the funder Minister for Health, and the supplementary question may be to the provider. Who is accountable anyway? Is this not getting a little absurd?

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