Page 2606 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
out over the last five years, I think you will find that the lot opposite have gone in for a hell of a lot more blatant promotion than any previous government in the ACT. Quite clearly, that is unnecessary when you are asking people in Canberra to tighten their belts, as was the spending of, I think, $57,000 on promoting the June budget, in terms of newsletter ads and a mail-out to the general population.
Mr Mulcahy: Propaganda.
MR STEFANIAK: It was propaganda. In light of the introduction of a very tight budget which will affect families, in many instances battling families, as they will have to pay at least $400 more on their rates and taxes bills than they did the previous year, that was a profligate waste of money on self-promotion by the government. Those are some of the issues with which we have significant problems.
Obviously, because you have increased the public service by 2,500, you need to make sensible cuts there. There is one area in that regard where there are significant problems; that is, in economic development. It is an area in which, if you fund good businesses here, if you can encourage good businesses to come to Canberra, you can actually bring money into the territory, rather than taking money from the taxpayers here. In that regard there was a cut in staff from 54 to 21, 18 in the economic development area and three in the policy area. We wait with interest to see how that will work out. Perhaps that is one area where it was not wise to make the cuts you have. We have the normal words being used about refocusing business development initiative to enhance entrepreneurial and innovation capacity across the ACT business community—weasel words which mean doing more with less.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.07): The Chief Minister’s line in the budget covers a multitude of areas and sets the tone for the entire budget. I just want to address a couple of higher-level issues that disturbed me in the whole budget and indeed in the Chief Minister’s Department.
It is interesting that when the Chief Minister announced the structural changes on 18 January this year, he said they would reduce complexity and duplication and that the alignment of the ministry to include the new minister was to make it simpler for people to understand. Yet, when questioned in estimates about the arrangements and how many staff there were, the Chief Minister stated as follows:
The new administrative arrangements are very complex and quite difficult across the board, particularly with the reintegration of a number of statutory authorities and independent bodies into various government departments.
It is interesting that, just two or three months after he said things will be simpler, we get this admission that the arrangements are still very complex and quite difficult. That is the problem with the arrangements. This is almost like kids in a lolly shop: I want that bit, that bit and that bit. We do not care which department they are in, who the CEO is or how many ministers the CEO of the department has to report to; it is okay because we are all going to have what we want. That is not good governance; it is not simplification. I think the minister needs to come back and explain why he has put in place a very complex system of ministerial arrangements. Until you get that right, the rest of it is not going to work properly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .