Page 2374 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
non-committee members. While I appreciate the need for an MLA to ask a question or a minister to provide reasoning, the ability for some MLAs and ministers to endlessly postulate was inconsiderate given the limited time available. Their behaviour hampered the ability of the committee to scrutinise the budget in a meaningful and productive manner.
Some examples include ministers giving opening statements that went for 25 minutes, ministers reading and signing briefs during hearings instead of participating in the hearings, filibustering, name calling and speaking over the chair. If constituents off the street came into estimates and saw this behaviour, their lack of trust and disrespect for politicians would be deeply confirmed.
I would like to draw on a couple of issues which were discussed in the estimates process, in particular in relation to funding for community organisations. In the context of efficiency dividends being required of ACT departments, the issue of that requirement being made of community organisations was raised. Given the growing demand on community services and the very limited funds available to them, such an economic measure is not appropriate. It is important that we recognise the pressure placed on services provided by community organisations and ensure their funding is not impacted by efficiency dividends.
There is a precedent for this in the 2006 budget. The Department of Housing and Community Services quarantined community organisations. The committee has recommended that the Standing Committee on Health, Community and Social Services inquire into the impact of the global financial crisis on non-government community organisations’ services and on the non-government community service sector in the ACT and the ACT government funding it receives. This would be relevant to how community organisations are funded in the coming years.
There are a number of issues which crossed over between different departments and where it was difficult to get answers on responsibility. When there were issues that crossed portfolios, ministers often referred the matter to another minister even though the previous minister holding that portfolio had taken the lead. The community sector task force review was an example of this.
Another example of this was the Community Inclusion Board. A number of departments were asked how community organisations, which had not had alternative sources of funding identified, were assisted, where the ending of community inclusion funding might result in the ending of funding or programs. For example, tracing who had responsibility for the ongoing funding for Gugan Gulwan’s literacy program was difficult. Every department seemed to have a different memory of what it or the other had done. Each department deferred responsibility to another and no department took a clear lead on the issue. After much questioning it was eventually identified that the Department of Education and Training had taken responsibility.
The committee has recommended that where community inclusion programs have ceased and been evaluated, the evaluation should be considered and formally responded to by the relevant ACT government department or agency. This would assist in providing much more clarity and certainty to those organisations effected. There was also an instance where climate change funding had been allocated to the arboretum but departments were not aware of this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .