Page 1972 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 12.22 to 2 pm.

Questions without notice

Budget—efficiency dividend

MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the ACT budget indicates that you intend to introduce an efficiency dividend for the 2010-11 financial year. The Chief Minister said this on 15 October 2008 in relation to the Canberra Liberals’ savings plan:

Two-hundred … public servants will lose their jobs. Two-hundred … families will have a major bread-winner who will not be employed at Christmas.

How many public servants will lose their jobs when the government introduces its efficiency dividend in 2010-11?

MS GALLAGHER: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. There are a few differences between the approach that the Liberal Party took to the election and the position that we have adopted in this budget, the first being that the efficiency dividend that we are asking agencies to find—savings measures that we are asking agencies to find—is delayed one year so that they have the time to do thorough business analyses around areas within their agencies, non labour related, that can produce savings. We have also ensured that small agencies that have more difficulty in finding savings have been given less of a task.

Unlike the Liberals, we have not told agencies that we would be wiping out entire areas of their departments, such as the Liberals plan. In the Chief Minister’s Department your plan was to abolish the major projects unit. In the Legislative Assembly, for example, there was going to be a slash to the Legislative Assembly of around $100,000, from what I remember. There were going to be nurses cut from the Alexander Maconochie Centre. We have not taken that approach. We have not told agencies—

Mr Seselja: The first thing you said is wrong.

MS GALLAGHER: It is not wrong. You had significant savings in the major projects unit.

Mr Seselja: You said it was going.

MS GALLAGHER: Significant, in the millions.

Mr Smyth: You said you were going to abolish it.

MS GALLAGHER: Okay. What, you were going to keep one person sitting there to do the filing, were you? There were significant savings being sought from the major projects unit in CMD.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .