Page 2607 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That leads to the staff changes. Is it 500 or is it 318? I notice that, in the government’s response to the committee’s report, it is now a net loss of 318. Suddenly the word “net” has appeared. When you read the Chief Minister’s speech, quite clearly the process is to cut 500 staffers to make some savings. We find out later on that the Chief Minister still cannot detail them. Three out of the five ministers cannot detail the staff changes, and suddenly this word “net” has appeared. Yes, there are 500 changes, but they are offset by growth. This is disarray. The ministers cannot answer the questions as to why we should give them the money if they cannot tell us where that money will be spent.
It is interesting that when challenged over the growth in the public service, the Chief Minister said he was quite alarmed. He had not noticed it had grown 2,500 staff, and clearly he still cannot detail where that growth is. I asked some specific questions of the Chief Minister. When I asked him—and he has done it in question time again—“Where has the growth come from?” he said, “We had to make up from all your failings when you were in office. It is more police. It is more emergency service workers. It is child protection workers.”
Again, I put questions on notice to the Chief Minister to detail this and he could not give me the answer. He said I had to go and ask other ministers. He is willing to use it as his defence for having 2,500 public servants, but he cannot detail it and he hides behind: “It is the responsibility of other ministers.” Well, Chief Minister, no it is not. Ultimately it is your responsibility and you should be able to answer these questions. These are quite simple questions: how much did you spend on these so-called priority areas, and how many staff were involved? I can bet that it does not add up to the 2,500 staff the public service has grown by.
Again at the higher level is the complete lack of strategy to get this government out of the problems they have got themselves into. The Chief Minister makes great store out of the fact that he has had five surpluses in a row, that the economy is in boom time. He says in his speech a couple of times, “There is no crisis.” Again, why the draconian measures? We get this chest-beating: I am the only one with the bottle or the courage to make the changes. Let us be honest about this: he is the only one with the numbers. For the first time, he has actually got the numbers and he has dug us, as a territory, the largest hole that we could ever have to try and escape from.
It is the lack of strategy: we are going to shut 39 schools out of about 160, but without rhyme or reason, and that cannot be justified; we are going to cut tourism, even though we know we get a dividend from tourism; we are going to cut business, even though we know that if we are going to wean ourselves off land sales, then we have to be looking for alternative sources of revenue. Yes, you can reduce expenditure, you can put the lid on services, you can charge more but, ultimately, if you want to be sustainable and viable you must find new sources of revenue. But the area where you are most likely to get those new sources of revenue are savaged in this budget by the Chief Minister. I think it is the abandonment of the business community, the abandonment of the economic white paper and the social plan.
I put questions on notice during estimates asking how the budget affects the actions listed in the economic white paper. I got an answer back firstly from the Deputy Chief Minister, acting for the Chief Minister, saying that the economic white paper has nothing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .