Page 2422 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
reflect these differences and its provision of support. It is not a matter of just making life easier for the Secretariat; it is about making the considerable workload of the ACT’s elected representatives on both sides of this chamber more efficient so that the business of legislating and of government is more effective and better serves the people of Canberra. Funding for this support should reflect this mentality.
If we are going to invest the millions that we do in the operation of the Secretariat, let us make sure that it is capable of doing an efficient job and that we reasonably meet the needs of our members. The question might be how can we better meet the needs of members? I suggest by offering more flexibility and adaptable solutions; by streamlining many of the administrative hoops that need to be jumped through in getting things done; and, most of all, by listening to the concerns of those who use the DOA and making appropriate improvements to the system to reflect those concerns.
Over the past four years this Labor government has developed something of a reputation for inefficiency and sluggish productivity when it comes to running and administering essential services for the people of Canberra. Look at the state of the ACT public service. Since 2001 the ACT government has enjoyed a revenue bonanza from land sales, stamp duty and the GST, but it has been squandered. Of a $900 million revenue windfall $445 million has gone on Labor employing some 2,300 more public servants and paying them more. Looking forward, this means that over the next four years to 2010 the ACT economy is expected to grow by 13 per cent but the government will grow by 19 per cent. In other words, for every one per cent growth in the economy there will be a 1.4 per cent increase in government spending.
What the government continually fails to understand is that productivity growth is the only way to achieve sustainable gains in living standards from working smarter and finding better ways of doing things. If we bring that back to the Secretariat, it is a symbol of those underlying challenges and problems. Obviously we need to ensure that taxpayers’ money is being used for flexible and effective operations in the running of government, but I do not believe that we need to necessarily embrace a parsimonious approach that inhibits the capacity of members to do their job. I have mentioned in previous debates, on matters related to annual reports, on last year’s budget and certainly through the estimates process last year, that I believe the Secretariat is compelled to take the approach it does in relation to these matters. There is a reluctance to advance and address the needs of members because of the budgetary pressure that is applied on the territory.
I would be the last one to say: let us start going on a high-spending process. But I believe the difficulty members face in simply communicating with their electorates is verging on ridiculous. We have seen sharp contrasts in the federal parliament—and I know, Mr Speaker, from your comments the other day that you are not at all keen on that level of largesse, and I am not advocating that.
On the other hand, as Mr Stefaniak said in public comment, if we do not have the capacity as non-executive members to even write one letter each year to each of our constituents or communicate in some form adequately, we have a fundamental problem with relevance and our capacity to represent the needs of those who elect us to this place and ask us to take up their issues. These issues are not being tackled. They have been raised time and again. Numerous administrative challenges are presented to members of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .