Page 2701 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
embark on this program and expect us all to understand these radical changes that are being applied in the territory’s affairs. But the minister responsible for a major agency’s hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds under his control does not have a clue what the elements of change should be and does not believe he should have to. To another question on how the department plans to achieve its objective of no waste by 2010, Mr Hargreaves stated:
We are committed to getting it to what we can consider a no waste position … By 2010 if we can, but I have to tell you … as we go down the track, 2010 is an ambition … But am I committed to it? Yes I am. Will I achieve it? We will see in 2010.
That is an absolute, casual disregard for the accountability one expects in this place. How is the estimates process supposed to critically evaluate the government’s intended direction, as outlined in its 2006-07 budget, and communicate this to the people of the ACT when government ministers are providing evasive and, at times, combative answers to the committee? Sadly, this behaviour is symbolic of the arrogance with which this government has come to treat legitimate criticism and the contempt with which this government has come to treat the concerns of the people of Canberra.
In no other area in government do we receive more complaints than in the area of municipal services. It is imperative that, if there are to be changes in this area, they are fully established, made clear to the people and before this Assembly before we are expected to vote on an item of this consequence. So there are constantly examples of ideological stubbornness that cloud the economic decision making of this government. Nothing is greater than the dreaded arboretum, which now comes under the funding responsibility of TAMS.
Mrs Dunne: It is a much smaller arboretum than it used to be.
MR MULCAHY: A much smaller one indeed, as Mrs Dunne points out, but it is still there. It defies belief that, in the current fiscal environment of cost saving and budget discipline, this government has not abolished spending on such a frivolous exercise to shore up the provision of essential services such as health and education. It is the Chief Minister’s pet project and his rule prevails at all times. According to Mr Zissler’s statements in estimates, the intended works for continuing with the establishment of the arboretum in 2006-07 will consist of planting, shaping and realigning trees, as well as scraping dirt piles, all at a cost of $1.3 million. Imagine all the things we could do with $1.3 million in this territory. We could help the hospital, policing and education. Maybe we would have a little bit less of the cutbacks in Mr Barr’s portfolio if this money were sensibly applied.
Mr Hargreaves: It is non-recurrent. You should know better.
MR MULCAHY: I understand about recurrent and capital, Mr Hargreaves, but the fact of the matter is that it all has to be ultimately found. That is the problem this government cannot come to terms with. How can this government justify spending $1.3 million to plant trees and scrape dirt when there are so many other needs in this territory of greater priority? I need to also mention the revenue raising contribution TAMS is making to the budget. On top of the heavy-handed increases to taxis, levies and charges—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .