Page 2434 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I understand the principle of cabinet solidarity, so I do not expect to hear any details about who was and who was not in favour of releasing this report. Seeing, however, that it is having a major impact on life in Canberra I am sure there has been intense discussion in the cabinet room over its potential release.
I understand that very few people have seen the whole report. I can only assume and hope, for our better government, that all the ministers at least have read the whole review very closely. I like to think that our government is working from the fullest available information.
One thing I have heard through this rumour machine is that the chief executives of most of the ACT departments have not read the whole review themselves, that they have only seen the chapter or section that relates to their concerns, and that people responsible for units within the department have only seen a short list of the recommendations they were required to implement. Of course, with the threat of legal action hanging over any public servant who lets on about anything, we might never find out more than that.
In a small city-state like this one it is ludicrous and inefficient to analyse the benefits and costs of proposals inside the silos rather than across government. Nowhere is this more potentially damaging—to children, to communities and probably to the government itself—than in the case of planned school closures and amalgamations. If it has not been possible for officers of the department of education to talk to the urban planning, community services and business support units about the potential impact of a neighbourhood school’s closure, it is unlikely that decisions can be the right ones.
The review had a very narrow mandate which excluded consideration of social impacts for students’ families in the broader community. If the heads of departments and the ministers have had to operate in isolation from each other in implementing the recommendations of a secret report, I think we can be pretty sure that in too many places this budget has got it wrong.
The executive has stood by the Chief Minister when he has made the argument that these are the hard decisions and that we must be grateful to this government for having the courage to make them. The rest of us are not so sure. We have only rumour and speculation to guide us. That is why I have been asking for the review to be made public so we can see the thinking behind this budget.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.3—Auditor-General totalling $1,946,000 (net cost of outputs), totalling $1,946,000.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (12.08): Again my comments will be relatively brief in relation to this outlay. Obviously my dealings with the Auditor-General come, in a sense, in two capacities—both as a member and, in some respects more importantly, through being chair of the public accounts committee. In the time I have been in the Assembly I have been singularly impressed by the quality and thoroughness of the work of the ACT Auditor-General. I think the territory is well-served with her professionalism and that of the team she has around her.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .