Page 2011 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But the administrative level and degree of support behind Healthpact was significant. It employed somewhere in the order of eight full-time equivalent administrative officers to serve the organisation. Eight staff positions were directed at supporting Healthpact. We believe we can deliver the Healthpact program more efficiently than that with a new rejigged, redirected arrangement, with staff centralised to support the delivery of a multiplicity of grant schemes.
We are developing a grants portal. We are restricting grants to directed, focused schemes, and this move has been applauded across the community sector. Funding for the grants scheme is essentially being retained across the board. In relation to Healthpact, it has been retained absolutely. There is no reduction in the availability of grants. A dozen or so schemes have accumulated over the years in relation to Healthpact and other grant schemes. The Liberals initiated many of them; we initiated some new ones.
Reducing the multiplicity of access to grants will create enormous efficiencies in delivery. It will assure some centrality. It will reduce the enormous administrative burden that organisations were beginning to face in relation to the constant round of applications for grants. There will now be two streams of grants, and they will be centrally administered. It is just a movement. Healthpact has existed for 10 years. A new structure has been designed and will be implemented. It will be more efficient and will allow more funds to be directed at outputs across the board. It is important that we do not allow existing mechanisms and structures to persist forever without this sort of review and renewal. That applies across the board.
I will not dwell on tourism, but the tourism commission was also reasonably heavy in terms of its administration. From memory, somewhere in the order of 16 per cent of all tourism expenditure was devoted to supporting the structure, the organisation. It was not—
Mr Mulcahy: It is not an argument for abolishing it, though.
MR STANHOPE: No, but it is an argument for looking anew, with fresh eyes, and seeking efficiencies. It is about ensuring outputs and outcomes. It is about getting better value for money. It is an argument that applies to every one of the decisions that has been taken. Sixteen per cent of the entire tourism budget was devoted to supporting the Australian Capital Tourism Corporation. We believe we can do better.
I am taking this from memory, but I believe that Healthpact was supported by eight full-time equivalent staff. We believe we can do better, and we will do better. We are not reducing the grants. We are reducing the administrative overheads. It is a mantra that I hear constantly from the shadow Treasurer. I do not understand how the shadow Treasurer, in the context of his comments over the last 18 months, could possibly argue against a proposal which has, at its heart, efficiencies and the reduction of administrative overheads. One grant scheme, Healthpact, was supported by up to eight full-time equivalent staff. For Mr Mulcahy to argue against that, in the context of my very clear memory of things that he said in relation to these issues—
Mr Barr: That was generally speaking, though, Chief Minister, not specifically.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .