Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 21 June 1995) . . Page.. 1004 ..


as I understand it. So, I think you might be wrong, Mr Wood. I will come back to the issue here. What we are talking about here is making sure that we have an efficient approach to the way we operate government. We think that moving land management into Urban Services is a very efficient way to go. We believe that having a department that is virtually a department of the city council is the way to go. It is a very big department. It will be a real challenge for the departmental head, Mr Turner, and, of course, for Mr De Domenico; but we think that this is about efficient service delivery to the people of Canberra.

Again, I come back to it. It seems that those opposite are more interested in what the Ministers do than in the quality of service delivery. We think that service delivery has to be the bottom line in this Government. This Government will be about management. It will be about service delivery. It will not be about politics or, for that matter, about not getting on with the job. This is about management, and this is a good management arrangement.

MR WOOD: I ask a supplementary question. I think Mrs Carnell has just shown that she does not know what these arrangements do, because she is wrong.

MR SPEAKER: Ask the supplementary question, Mr Wood.

MR WOOD: The Environment and Land Bureau, under a different departmental head, now reports to Mr Humphries. The Bureau of Arts and Heritage, under another bureaucratic head, reports to Mr Humphries, as does the ACT Planning Authority. I concede that this is a very difficult document to follow, but it is one that the Chief Minister ought to follow because it seems that she designed it - or misdesigned it. Perhaps the Chief Minister could put this in context in this way. There were previously, I think, eight or perhaps nine - - -

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members on the other side of the chamber have got into a very bad habit of making statements instead of asking questions. I would like to hear what the question is, rather than an exposition as to why the Government is wrong, in their opinion.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, this chamber has often allowed Ministers to answer questions how they like, and perhaps a little bit of latitude for the questioners might be appropriate.

MR SPEAKER: I am afraid that I really cannot allow too much latitude at all. I am governed by standing orders. The following general rules apply to questions: Questions shall be brief and relate to a single issue; whereas, as you know, Ministers can answer the questions as they see fit. Mr Wood, would you like to ask your question.

MR WOOD: Mr Humphries stood up after I had made my statement and while I was asking my question. He was just a bit late. The question is this: There were about eight departmental heads before this change. You were talking about streamlining, efficiency and everything like that. How many of those former department heads have been reduced in status as a result of this change? I imagine that that would be a necessary outcome from what you say.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .