Page 3030 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Leave granted.
MR SMYTH: I table the following document:
Strategic and Functional Review—Copy of letter to Mr Michael Costello, AO, Chairman, Strategic and Functional Review, from Mr Peter Dunn, AO, Commissioner, ACT Emergency Services Authority, dated 4 April 2006.
In this letter from Mr Dunn to Mr Costello—it was borne out in the committee inquiry, and it was feebly refuted by Mr Corbell in the committee inquiry, and I will refer to the proof Hansard if I get time—he stated:
Notwithstanding this, it must be noted that the ESA has over-achieved against budget last financial year and in the current year. This continues an unsatisfactory historical situation that has seen a Treasurer’s advance situation develop both in the former ESB and now in the ESA on an annual basis.
He then went on to say:
But, on top of that, we have been asked to fund more functions … The second area that should be mentioned is the cost pressure that has occurred as a result of the ACT—
the government—
agreeing to participate in the Australian Government Program to develop an urban search and rescue capability.
So they are told: “Here’s another function, go and do it. It’s going to cost you half a million dollars but we want some savings.” And this is the fault and the fallacy at the heart of the thing that is called the functional review. In his letter he goes on to say:
As this is a new capability for the ACT, funding is needed if it is to be created. Provision is currently made for this capability in Budget Paper 4 but it is offset by a saving provision of an identical amount.
He then says:
The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is of the view that this offsetting provision should be removed.
He goes on to talk about a number of other things, including funding for the InTACT costs for the ESA and the fact that there was a joint study undertaken by ESA and Treasury. But at the heart of it, and what Mr Dunn then told the committee, was: “We were doing other functions but we were not getting the money that was required for it. We were employing more people. We were being told by the government to go ahead and employ these other people.”
The information is contained in the statement of intent, in the contract between the government and the ESA at that time, but they were never given the money. Promises were made and were not kept. On the basis of that understanding, the government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .