Page 2716 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
processes. The importance of the region as we respond particularly to environmental challenges before us cannot be overstated.
Equally, we have a range of overarching plans, some of which will be reviewed this year, and the challenge will be to coordinate them with lower lever plans and ensure that everything sits together. For example, things like the infrastructure plan need to be closely coordinated with our climate change and clean economy strategies. I note again that many of the plans have not been forthcoming, and I hope that the new coordinated approach will lead to these being developed in a more timely and much more coordinated manner. Currently the various plans and strategies seem to be approached and delivered in a relatively stand-alone manner as opposed to an integrated and coordinated effort that reflects how actions on one front can significantly impact on others.
In relation to the estimates committee recommendations and the government response, I would like to make a couple of observations. Firstly, in regard to the evaluation of the success of the one public service model, I think we need to recognise that it will be very difficult to assess the overall impact given the scope of the changes. Nevertheless, there should be measurable and identifiable improvements. Whilst the committee recommendation puts evaluation in the context of staff movements, I think it is broader than this and that it is not unreasonable to expect that we should be able to measure improvements in effectiveness. No doubt, the annual reports process at the end of the year will commence this evaluation. It will, of course, not be until the following annual reports process where we will have the real opportunity to evaluate the success of the changes. I would also like to welcome the undertaking to report back on the full cost of the Hawke changes by December of this year.
I finish off on this area—I know my colleague Ms Bresnan will be picking up on some more issues—by acknowledging that Mr Seselja was right: I did make a mistake in my last speech. I acknowledge that Mr Seselja was right about the Assembly being able to determine its own number of ministers. There were amendments to the self-government act in 1992, and, although it was not clear on the face of them, they provided for the Assembly to decide its own number. Of course, there is discussion about this in the Companion to the standing orders at paragraph 6.65 for those who would like to have a look at that discussion. I thought it was important to let Mr Seselja know that he had been right on this occasion.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (8.01): There is a lot covered in the Chief Minister’s portfolio and I will not attempt to cover it all. There are two areas, though, that are worthy of consideration, some of which relate to the Economic Development portfolio. The first one, of course, is the government office building or, as Mr Hargreaves affectionately refers to it, the GOB. There is an entire chapter on the government office building.
I note that the Chief Minister made the comment that she thought perhaps too much time had been spent on it, but I could actually make a case that not enough time was spent on the entire project. It is the largest single infrastructure project that the territory will have undertaken in the last 20 years. The Chief Minister shakes her head and says—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video