Page 3725 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the end, it is up to ministers to ensure that their departments run efficiently and effectively in delivering services to the people of the ACT. They cannot outsource that responsibility. They can have other people who are charged with delivering aspects of it and doing the work on the ground, but, in the end, the buck stops with the minister, who is responsible for ensuring that the department under him is managed effectively and efficiently to deliver these services. Clearly, there has been a breakdown of ministerial responsibility and leadership over the years which has led to some of these very damning findings in relation to municipal services in the ACT.
We are talking about some of the most important services delivered by the ACT government. These are the local, grassroots services which people very much notice when they are not done. We notice when the grass is not mown when it should be; we notice when the pothole is not filled; we notice when the footpath is in a state of disrepair and is not repaired for a long time. These are core functions for the government; it is absolute core business for the ACT government, which has both local and territory-level responsibilities. It is of significant concern to us that there are such damning findings in relation to the management of this area.
It is worth just touching on the charges that are suggested in the report, and we have heard Mr Stanhope refusing to rule out extra charges. Yesterday he refused to rule out extra charges for rubbish collection. In refusing to rule that out, he is saying to the community, “Even though you pay significant rates as a local ACT resident, they may no longer cover rubbish. Actually, what we might find is we need a separate charge for rubbish. Possibly, that might be over and above what you are paying in rates.”
I would have thought most Canberrans would have been under the impression that when they pay their rates they actually get their rubbish collected and they actually get basic services delivered. We have seen rates going up and up over the years. We are in a high-taxing jurisdiction. We have a government that is leaving open the possibility of actually saying to people, “We know you are paying high rates, but because we haven’t been able to manage our massive budget, a budget that is soon going to have doubled from the time we came into office, we might levy you extra for rubbish collection.”
We see the difference in approach even from Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd is doing a tax review, but when there were media reports that there may be a capital gains tax on the family home, the government rejected it, because it was wrong and would have been silly. It would have been a bad tax, and the government were able to see that. They did not need to go through a consultation process to say, “Well, we need to examine every possible bad tax. Every possible scenario is on the table.” They have said some things are not on the table. What else would be on the table? Would a doubling of rates be on the table? Is that going to be part of the conversation that we have? A tripling? Would we see stamp duty doubled? Is that something that could be considered in order for this government to get more revenue and to try and fill the budget black hole that we have seen?
We need to look at this report as a bit of a microcosm of this government. We know that a number of ministers over time have had a hand in TAMS and a number of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .