Page 2736 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proposals that had previously been deemed appropriate by someone else within the organisation. I have heard this on too many occasions, both immediately prior to my election and since being elected. It has been raised by quite a disparate group of individuals involved in the development area.
On a smaller scale as well, from time to time individuals have been known to contact my office regarding difficulties they have had in contesting ACTPLA decisions. Most of the complaints in this regard were based around the costly process of legal fees and other costs in appealing a negative decision, or the undue complexity the successful appeal usually contains, discouraging their pursuit by inexperienced or first-time development applications.
With these broad-ranging concerns in mind, it is with great anticipation that we herald Mr Corbell’s much needed reforms. The question must be asked: will the newly streamlined ACTPLA be able to meet its obligations to the ACT through its key outputs and performance indicators, particularly as it may be operating with fewer staff? Mr Neil Savery, chief planning executive for ACTPLA, indicated that one of the ways the department will be seeking to cope with its performance benchmarks will be simply to reduce them. He said in estimates:
We have also sought a modest reduction in output measures to reflect some of those changes.
It would seem that the government’s approach to meeting its performance obligations for service provision to the Canberra community is to reduce them so they eliminate the gap between what they are currently doing and what they are supposed to be doing. Mr Savery admitted as much in estimates, saying:
We haven’t been able to achieve the 90 per cent figure—
that is, the target for single dwelling applications—
consistently across 12 months … It might be that there will be changes that impact through the budget process on other parts of government that will affect their referral capacity.
It is a sad reflection on the performance of this government that its planning agency feels it necessary to reduce its performance commitments to the taxpayer because the 2006-07 budget may reduce its ability to do its job properly. This is not meaningful reform, nor is it streamlining for productivity gain. It is irrational and desperate cost cutting to make up for past mistakes, which is further degrading the capacity of departments to deliver essential services to our citizens. Real reform is about finding more efficient ways to do a better job but not crippling your capacity to do your job in the first place just so you can say you have saved a dollar or two here and there.
Time and time again, this government appears to have demonstrated an utter failure to understand this basic concept. The proof is in the performance of the economy and the management of the budget by Mr Stanhope and his cabinet. Instead of the increased productivity and streamlined service provision we would expect, we have seen a blow-out in public service staffing numbers, a blow-out in the wage and superannuation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .