Page 1990 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
talking about earlier, we clearly have a shortfall in capability. It would seem to me that this impost by this government, the introduction of an annual levy of $20 million, is clearly aimed at plugging the shortfall as a consequence of poor management on the part of this government and its Emergency Services Authority in the funding of those fundamental programs. Do we need to spend $27 million over the next four years on a new headquarters for the Emergency Services Authority? Why can we not make quite significant savings in that bag of gold, that $27 million? Surely that would go a long way to eradicating the need to levy—
Mr Mulcahy: He could move into the tourism offices.
MR PRATT: He once told us that he could live in a tent. Would that go a long way to eradicating the need for this government to impose this $20 million levy? I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it would. The Chief Minister asked earlier about what sorts of answers we have to meet some of these budget challenges. The way to meet these challenges is by making sure that you put your money into thrifty, carefully targeted, well-measured and well-managed programs, be they infrastructure such as the headquarters or white elephant communications programs. Indeed, a lot less money could be spent, for example, on upgrading CAD, rather than throwing good money after bad on bloody FireLink. If these management procedures were followed, there would not be a need to impose a $20 million levy.
In conclusion, I say that it is an absolute travesty that this government has mismanaged the emergency services budget in allowing the Emergency Services Authority to spend willy-nilly as it galloped off over the horizon and into the setting sun. By the way, the operational management on the part of the ESA is good. It is a good organisation and it operates well, but its administration and its financial management leave lots of questions to be answered. There would be no need to impose this levy if you got a grip on those management issues.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Arts, Acting Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services and Acting Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (6.27), in reply: I will speak very briefly in closing the debate. I must say that I would like to have responded in more detail in defence of the reputation of Commissioner Dunn, which has just been so resoundingly trashed by Mr Pratt in his comments. I have never seen such an outrageous attack on a dedicated officer as the one that we have just listened to from Mr Pratt on Commissioner Dunn.
Another thing I need to say, and it is inherent in the entire focus of this particular budget, is that it is about ensuring that we understand the cost of delivering government services and that we meet that cost through our revenue. We have increased funding to the Emergency Services Authority by 46 per cent, which begs the question: why, since coming to government, was it necessary to increase funding by 46 per cent? What was it that we found or inherited that required that level of extra investment and who was in government before us that left us with a situation which required a 46 per cent boost in funding for emergency services in the territory? You were. Tell us what funding you would cut. You have not told us what funding you would cut.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .