Page 2231 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
oversight body, unless his or her recommendations are implemented, the value of that office remains unrealised.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.4—Chief Minister’s Department, $36,766,000 (net cost of outputs), $5,296,000 (capital injection), totalling $42,062,000.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (5.32): We have before us the cabinet’s proposal to appropriate $42 million to the Chief Minister’s Department. There are preliminary signs that the Chief Minister’s Department is changing direction from its previous large cuts in the last fiscal year. This department will increase its full-time equivalent staff. The department will increase the staffing level from 124 full-time equivalent staff in 2006-07 to 146 full-time equivalent staff in 2007-08.
In 2006-07 we saw large employee expenses due to redundancy payments in this department from large cuts in staff. We are now seeing the government start to increase its staffing levels back up again. In my view, it is no coincidence that the Chief Minister is seeking to increase his departmental staff only one year out from the ACT election. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of the ACT will pick up the bill for the bolstering of the Chief Minister’s own department. It was something that we talked about back in June—the 24 extra people being brought on to provide advice on all manner of interesting issues. One can only wonder why that demand has suddenly become so critical for this team of specialist advisers.
It is interesting to note that, of the 67 budget policy adjustments to the Chief Minister’s Department in this budget, all 67 are for more money. In other words, there is not one policy decision in this budget that has had even a single reduction in spending for any single financial year, either in this year or in future years. This is out of 67 budget policy adjustments, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Last year I commented on the ongoing problems of reshuffles to the Chief Minister’s Department. I am sorry to see that they have continued in this year’s budget, though not to the same extent as last year. There has been a transfer of the community initiatives fund from the department of housing and community services and there has been a transfer of energy and water policy to the Department of Territory and Municipal Services. These continuing reshuffles often do little to increase efficiency. Instead, they quite often create extra work for existing staff in both departments and serve to cause confusion to ACT public servants—not least also to members of the Assembly. All of this often culminates in the loss of productivity and extra expense to the ACT taxpayer.
The culmination of these issues is that we are seeing a yoyoing effect in the Chief Minister’s Department. One year they undertake massive cuts to staff and reshuffles and incur large redundancy costs; the next year they increase staff and engage in policy adjustments that lead to increases in the size and spending of the department. This does not seem to be the way to run an efficient government department—especially the lead department, that of the Chief Minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .