Page 2323 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to receive. If I am incorrect in that, because there were lots of replies, I stand to be corrected, but I think that we need to be very satisfied that the basis of those charges will be seen as constitutional and in order. I have had representation suggesting that there is a measure of doubt there because of the method by which it is applied.
Mr Quinlan, with his knowledge of Actew, may care to deal with that later, although I know that it is within the Chief Minister’s area. There were issues that worried some members of the committee, including me. Whilst I am not professing to be a constitutional lawyer on matters related to excise, I think that there are concerns there that would only be fully satisfied if all of the legal opinions, some of which I acknowledge extend back to the former government, were made available.
Mr Speaker, there were also other matters of a general nature that we discussed. We were concerned over some of the indicators for different agencies in terms of client satisfaction. If you know much about client satisfaction surveys, you will know that anything that is not in the 90 percentile range is not a good score. We had agencies such as the library service aiming for 80 per cent. I understand that people, on the face of it, probably assume that they are good sorts of figures, but the fact of the matter is that that is not a good score and we should be aiming to do better. So the committee, in the collective, recommended that a minimum of 90 per cent be an ongoing future requirement of accountability indicators.
The matter of the ACT’s policing was a subject of considerable discussion in the committee, as Mr Hargreaves will no doubt remember. There were concerns expressed. We were at long last able to see that, in fact, policing numbers are down. I thought that it was enlightening that one of his officials eventually confirmed that figure. Obviously, the committee would be fascinated, but I understand that it is going to be concealed or withheld, to see the report on the ACT’s future policing needs once it is completed. I think that that is an area of concern to the public. I think that we would like to see the government get serious about its priorities.
The problem with this budget is that the Treasurer dismisses every criticism as ill informed and makes personal attacks on Mr Smyth.
Mr Quinlan: You got it wrong.
MR MULCAHY: He says that we all got it wrong, but what we have not got wrong here, Mr Speaker, is—
Mr Quinlan: You screwed up, both of you. Slide No 1, “I am an idiot.”
MR MULCAHY: I am glad you acknowledge that you are one, Mr Quinlan. I would not be as personally abusive as you are of yourself. Mr Speaker, the real concern here is that it is an issue of priorities and the Treasurer sees good times ahead all the time. How did the land sales go last week, Mr Speaker? How much land did he move last week in this buoyant period that he is counting on being out there to fund the high-spending approach of his government?
The government needs to get back to basics in terms of its budget strategy. It needs to move away from the frivolous areas of extravagance, which it may have been possible to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .