Page 225 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The government understands members’ interest in the functional review and the Leader of the Opposition’s motion underlies that interest. That the review continues to attract a great deal of interest, particularly from the opposition, is not unexpected for such a wide-reaching, timely and necessary review of government services. But all governments should have the capacity to review their operations and examine the efficiency and effectiveness of services they fund and deliver for their communities.
This type of review is not new. Responsible governments do these reviews from time to time. I would guess that every government before the Stanhope government did these reviews from time to time. But they were to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of their services, structures and systems to ensure the sustainability of services to the community. In undertaking such reviews, governments do need the capacity to make difficult and often hard decisions around resourcing. These decisions need to be made within the confidentiality of cabinet.
Cabinet meetings are a crucial vehicle for discussing government policy, enabling ministers to share opinions and advice on current issues, debate those opinions and make budget decisions. The functional review’s terms of reference were deliberately wide ranging to look deep into the ACT public service and the government services provided by departments and agencies. The review’s task was to give cabinet the very best information on the future directions of the territory.
It was also to give firsthand frank advice on the potential risks facing the territory in the medium and longer term. The government was not afraid to receive frank and hard advice and it did not back away from the changes needed to bring the territory’s structures, finances and services onto a sustainable footing. The government has restructured the territory’s finances without compromising the services it delivers. In fact, services in priority areas have been enhanced. Expenditure has been more tightly controlled and efficiency gains directed to front-line, high-priority services. The government strategy has proven to have worked. It has provided a buffer for circumstances such as those we now find ourselves in and it is due to the government’s financial management that the underlying budget structure is sound and able to ameliorate the impact of unprecedented fiscal shock.
Despite the recent global financial crisis, our economy does remain strong. Unemployment levels are amongst the lowest in the country and activity in our construction industry continues to be high. What is important are the decisions that the government made and what is important are the outcomes for the community. The functional review was but one part, albeit an important part, of the decision-making process.
What is relevant are the decisions that this government made, irrespective of what the review recommended or did not recommend. What is relevant is the record investment in education. One new state-of-the-art school is being built every year. What is important is the massive school upgrade program. Every school in the territory is being upgraded. What is important are the measures announced in the previous budget, a $300 million infrastructure investment in health. What is relevant to focus on is the $1 billion infrastructure investment program. For the Leader of the Opposition to focus on the release of the report of the functional review is very simplistic:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .