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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (26 March) . . Page.. 611 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Considering that there are already quite a lot of difficulties in communication between government agencies, and on-the-ground workers claim that their administrators are out of touch, this can only worsen the problem. How can further fragmentation benefit anyone? The administrative costs of ensuring that the policy-making provision and the funding mechanisms are integrated have also not been factored in in any of this work, especially in a small jurisdiction like Canberra.

There are a few other points that I would like to make. Firstly, the term "customer orientation" is being used more and more by governments. That is all very well, but the Government should recognise that the people of Canberra are not just customers or consumers; they are citizens as well. This reductionist approach is lacking, as the role of government extends beyond the provision of resources and programs. It must provide leadership as well. There is also a whole range of concerns about adopting market mechanisms for service delivery, particularly the human services. For a start, there are real difficulties with financial quantification of some services. We have been hearing this over and over again in submissions to the competition policy inquiry. There is also a danger that responsiveness to community needs will be lost through tendering completely replacing grant systems. I have not heard anyone talk about the need for a full and open needs analysis in the ACT before we start reconstructing agencies and the community sector along commercial lines.

Mr Moore raised his concerns about where the committees and the Assembly fit into this reform agenda, and I add my concerns. The question of Executive power is not tackled at all; nor is the stranglehold that the two major parties have on the systems of government - for example, last year's budget process. Without any fundamental change to the existing imbalance between Executive and non-Executive power, the use of the word "advisory" for describing the role of committees is somewhat alarming. What makes committees work well now is the independent accountability. We also would have to comment on the fact that there have been budgetary cuts to the Secretariat in this place, which has serious implications for the ability of committee work to be continued in the way it should and probably increase, which one would think is in the interests of everyone here. It is certainly in the interests of consultative government.

The lack of a holistic strategy and forward planning that link social, environmental and economic issues is something else raised in this report. This is something that the Greens have been saying for some time. We entirely agree that it is necessary, and we welcome the work that is under way to develop a strategic plan for the ACT. We hope that this document will inspire more discussion and constructive debate about how we are working here and that it will have a good end, with everyone's cooperation.

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