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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4080 ..

Mrs Carnell: That is because we did not have the numbers and the Assembly bagged it, but it will come up again.

MS TUCKER: Mrs Carnell interjects that it will come up again. I repeat that I would welcome discussion on it. Then we had the strategic plan. I have heard Mr Moore speak about that a lot. It is something that the Greens have talked about as well. It seemed to be something that a lot of people were enthusiastic about. I understood that it was being developed with the Planning and Environment Committee so that it would have input from members of the Assembly. Now it has been completely taken over by the Executive. I am very disappointed to see that. What is the point of having a supposedly multipartisan strategic plan if no-one feels any ownership of it?

I think it is a quite good example of the evaluation procedures in these documents that you give us. How is this type of initiative evaluated in your quality effectiveness indicators? I guess it is through the ACT policy performance measures. I am not really sure which one, but they might be appropriate to apply to the development of a strategic plan. You said that the ACT policy performance measures would address things like practicality and relevance. I would ask about the practicality and relevance of a strategic plan that the community do not feel ownership of. I just cannot work out from your documents - maybe you can explain it - how that evaluation occurs. Can members of this place see how that evaluation takes place and who does the evaluation?

I move along to another issue that other members have raised - sale and lease-back arrangements. I did speak about the sale and lease-back agreements and assets sales the other day, but I think it is worth reiterating the fact that the Government has not provided any good justification for why we should pursue sale and lease-back arrangements, aside from the fact that other jurisdictions are doing it. Other jurisdictions are doing lots of things that I do not think we particularly want to emulate. It is not a good reason.

Mr Speaker, this is also the department that sets the priorities. The Greens - it is clear; we have said it often - do not think the priorities of this Government are appropriate. This Government is driven by a bottom-line economic approach. When I use that word, I do not mean a broad definition of economics. I have to add that it is not an approach that is all that different from that of Labor governments. Labor and Liberal together have led Australia down this path.

It says on page 15 of Budget Paper No. 4 that a key strategic initiative is "to seek and capitalise on opportunities which will support Employment and the Economic Revitalisation of the ACT". I know that other members have also spoken on this, but I think I need to speak as well because it is an issue that I think we are very concerned about. The Government has said on a number of occasions that the main budget strategy of the ACT Government is the creation of a budget surplus and the creation of jobs. If jobs are to be the top priority of the ACT Government, how is it that the Government has cut the funding to a very successful community organisation, Jobline?

Mrs Carnell: And funded a new one.

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