Page 2419 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
presented a budget that maintains the provision of core service commitments to the ACT community while continuing to be financially responsible and responsive. There is wide evidence to support the fact that the costs of general government services in the ACT are far greater than those in other jurisdictions. The decisions made as part of the budget recognise the need to reduce costs to be in line with benchmark comparatives.
This budget introduces a range of administrative reforms and structural changes. It also provides significant reinvestment and redirection of resources into areas of critical need, particularly within the education and health sectors. In its consideration of the budget the Select Committee on Estimates discussed a wide range of issues and made 73 recommendations. The government responded to each recommendation. The committee’s report also included a part 2, additional comments and dissenting report, and the government broadly responded to that part of the report.
I will not take the Assembly’s time by working through each of the select committee’s 73 recommendations as they are discussed in the response document. Nevertheless, I will touch on some of the more important issues. The committee recommended the reversal or review of several major decisions applied in the budget, in particular, the revised superannuation contribution arrangements. It is imperative to reiterate in regard to superannuation that the ACT is the only jurisdiction that applies rates in line with its federal counterparts, even though 65 per cent of the Commonwealth work force resides and competes for employment outside the ACT.
It is also important to note that the ACT government does not compete with the federal government for the largest part of its work force, namely, teachers, nurses, health professionals, child protection workers, firefighters, bus drivers and rangers. The government’s contribution to the superannuation entitlements of its employees is 139 per cent above the national average. It was timely that the government reviewed those arrangements. If the government failed to address the issue now the cost of public servants superannuation would increase by 700 per cent over the next 30 years.
The committee also recommended throughout its report that the government improve and enhance the presentation of the budget papers to ensure that appropriate cross-referencing, indexation, comparative tables and variance analysis were included in the publication. Several recommendations also called for the inclusion of additional information particularly about staffing. The government is committed to the continuing improvement of the presentation, quality and usability of information included in the budget papers. To that end the government has noted the committee’s recommendations in this regard and it will explore the feasibility of further presentational improvements.
The dissenting report of Mr Pratt and Mr Smyth has some 90 recommendations. There is much I could say about the dissenting report. In summary, however, in various places either it is wrong, for example, with its calculations of staffing numbers and resulting bottom-line adjustments, or it seeks reversal of essential budget decisions with no supporting evidence or argument. But the biggest disappointment of the dissenting report is its failure to provide any feasible alternatives or policies to support the recommendations put forward. It takes a particularly short-sighted view to ongoing financial management. The government’s response to the dissenting report states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .