Page 1426 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In relation to Territory and Municipal Services expenditure—and it is in the Ernst & Young report—it does appear that the government has endeavoured to address the recommendations made in that report. My understanding is that the practices within the department are improving. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed and I look forward to estimates and annual report hearings later this year as a most appropriate forum for ensuring that departmental expenditure is justified and is an effective and efficient use of public funds.
We do have differences in how we believe that budget priorities should go. We have differences with the government. One of those that I would use as an example is the rangers in parks across the ACT. We really do not have enough of these rangers. If we take as an example the PCL staff who manage the tree protection unit, there is only one person to manage all the private trees in south Canberra; one does the trees in central Canberra; and one in north Canberra. This is almost an impossible task for even the most dedicated and skilled staff.
We also believe that there needs to be greater expenditure for those rangers that are out in our remote areas across the ACT, that they also need to be supported. I think Mr Smyth would have to agree that the interaction between these workers and people in the volunteer bushfire brigades and so forth is an incredibly important synergy. If we properly support our rangers then we believe that that is a good way to expend money.
On the issue of spending cuts and government savings, firstly, the words “fly-in, fly-out razor gang” are really loaded language that is not appropriate for motions. The minister has outlined that this money has not been spent. My understanding—and Mr Smyth’s understanding, I am sure—is that this amount of money has been set aside so that external consultants can be engaged to identify savings.
There will be issues about government spending and the need for scrutiny. The Greens, of course, share concerns about getting the best return for public money, getting the best bang for our buck, and we would hope that all the money is spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible. And it is our job to scrutinise that. As I said earlier, the Assembly does have processes and mechanisms for addressing these issues and providing that scrutiny.
I would say that external sources—and this fund is being set up to engage these external experts to get advice—may be able to improve the way things are done within the departments, and that seems to be reasonable, with the appropriate safeguards and limits. And it is quite a responsible and reasonable way to go, I would have thought, to identify where we can do things better, where we might be able to save some money that then can be redirected at other high-need areas or other areas where we are experiencing particular cost pressures.
I think at the beginning of my speech I was also saying that, although speakers in this debate have said that the ACT government needs to take full responsibility, we do need to understand the context that we find ourselves in in 2010—the context of the global financial crisis; the context of $85 million being taken away through a recent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video