Page 3441 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am concerned that there is no new funding for TAMS, and the previously announced funding is still below what the commissioner recommended and what TAMS and the trees need. In response to our questions we now see some progress, but it continues to be slow going, and on many points there is still no explanation as to why it is all taking so long. Basically, there is no explanation for the gap in funding. The commissioner recommended $4 million in new funding each year and $1 million up front. Tracking all the money that has been taken in or out, it looks to us like we are headed for a shortfall of more than $2 million a year. The longer we fail to look after our street trees properly, the greater the safety risks and the greater the cost down the track. I am very concerned about this shortfall.
It is possible that I have missed something, but it is also possible that there is more to this story that we just have not heard. I note the information about recurrent expenditure, which we have had to ask for, does not seem to match the money that has gone in and gone out. This is troubling, because we still do not have any explanation.
The ACT budget is supposed to be the government’s key policy document where they put into action what they want done. In the case of TAMS, it often seems that the government deliberately obscure how money will be spent so that they can shuffle money around at the end of the year. We are concerned that tree management will suffer as a result.
It is a broader issue. Trying to piece together a picture of what is going on by chasing down basic information about internal budgets is an extraordinary waste of everybody’s time and public money. It is also unfair. It gets in the way of fair scrutiny and obscures public debate. We have asked the government a number of times why they cannot provide more information about recurrent expenditure in the budget, and the response is usually that there just is not enough space in the budget. Of course, if you go back to the old budgets, you will see that this is not true, at least for TAMS.
A decade ago TAMS reported expenditure in budgets under each of its activities as an indicator under output classes. It took up half a page for each output class. If we cannot do that now, at least it should be possible to find space on the budget website for a few more spreadsheets which have basic information about costs, revenue and staffing so far for various programs.
Imagine the time and energy we would all save in estimates if that information was available. Imagine how it would better inform debate and “citizen journalism” and inspire Canberrans to engage with territory governance. It would probably benefit the public service as well. Real, open government could hardly be easier and more cost effective. I know there are many advocates in the community that would be very happy to see this change. There is really no excuse, especially when we remember that the government has already passed my open government motion calling for a proactive stance in favour of disclosure and better use of ICT in providing government information. I call upon the government to actually act on this and not just talk about it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video