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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1947 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The introduction of the purchaser-provider model is still a concern to the Greens because there are still a lot of loose ends in there. The consequences of that are quite concerning, so we will continue to monitor and encourage the Government to evaluate closely what the purchaser-provider model means in terms of service delivery, in terms of strains on the community sector, even in terms of cost-effectiveness. We know that the whole question of the administration of purchaser-provider split is still unclear in terms of its cost implications, and we have discussed that in regard to the possibility of the Auditor-General being able to look at that at some time.

In conclusion, I hear from the Government that they are interested in the whole-of-government approach. In some areas, there does seem to be a real attempt to improve interagency communication. However, I tend to think it is still more about whole-of-government financial managers simply making decisions for all areas.

MR MOORE (12.19): In speaking to the appropriation for the Chief Minister's Department, it is very interesting to follow Mr Whitecross and Ms Tucker, who referred to Canberra: A Capital Future - ACT strategic plan. It is interesting that the Auditor-General also referred to that on page 8 of his Report No. 3 of 1997 on Territory operating loss. This is the document that was rejected by the Assembly, so it is very interesting that the Auditor-General uses it as a way of trying to understand where the Government is going. Perhaps, had it been a Government plan, that would have been reasonable; but the reason it was rejected was that it was the Assembly's view that the strategic plan should be able to carry on, taking into account the full views of people in the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to that because it is also mentioned at page 14 of Budget Paper No. 4, Volume 1, that the staging of a national capital futures conference will provide a forum for discussion of those key issues confronting the Territory. I hope that that forum will mark the beginning of an attempt to get a coordinated approach to a strategic plan. If we can get an agreed position from the vast majority of people in the Assembly, there is a chance that such a strategic plan can carry through into the future. I can understand why some people would feel sceptical about that, but it still seems to me to be the best way to test whether we can get an agreed position.

Chief Minister's Department responsibilities include, to quote from page 13, a well-managed public sector, with motivated and trained staff to provide responsive services to the ACT community, and a soundly managed economy. It is interesting that that is the overriding interest of the Chief Minister's Department, and so it should be. It would be interesting to test whether the people of the ACT feel they are getting increased responsiveness in the provision to them of public service.

Apart from those general conceptual things, I also want to deal with a couple of minor issues coming out of the Government's response to the Estimates Committee. It is very interesting that in response to recommendation 1 the Government agrees in principle and then says:

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