This week’s Industry Commission report on the eight state and territory Governments’ efficiency and effectiveness gives independent verification to a message oft repeated in ACT politics: that we spend too much to too little on government services in the ACT. The Liberal Party went into the last election with that message and attained government. Before it, the Labor Government preached frugality and warned that federal subvention was waning and that we had to get more efficient at delivering services.
However, since February the Carnell Government has met some stiff resistance, particularly from public-sector unions, when it has attempted to do that.
The Industry Commission’s 600-page Report on Government Service Provision found that among the eight governments the ACT had the most expensive acute-care public hospital treatment; the second-longest tiem to clear hospital waiting lists; the third-higest administration cost of public housing (in the most compact area); the lowest level of satisfaction among TAFE students; one of the most inefficient court systems and so on. Sure, each can list a litany of excuses and reasons. However, to have one or two poor performing areas is unfortunate; to have seven or eight looks highly suspicious. Moreover, for every if and but that provides a peculiarly ACT excuse for ineffectiveness, there is a peculiar attribute of the ACT that should make the ACT administration more effective, especially its compact nature and high education and income of its people. But no; it seems that in this centre of Australian administration, we are not very good at administration.
The Industry Commission’s report is a more pertinent measure of government performance than previous measures, notably those of the Grants Commission. The Grants Commission had long highlighted that the ACT was spending more per head, but the ACT administration response was that we were providing better or more services for that money. It was not the commission’s job to go beyond asking how much money was being spent to ask how effectively was it being spent. The Industry Commission has taken up that task. Its answer with respect to the ACT is plainly that the money is not being spent as effectively as in other states and territories in a lot of areas.
What is to be done? It cannot be changed overnight. In the past six months, the ACT Government has put in train efficiency and effectiveness measures. The Industry Commission report shows that it is possible to do better with less expenditure. So it is important for the people of the ACT not to assume that less government money for a functions means lower service. To the contrary, many organisations have shown that leaner administrations produce better results for less money. Canberrans have to treat with scepticism the yelps of those who have a vested interest in inefficiency.
ACT taxpayers _ armed with the evidence of the Industry Commission report _ have a right to expect more efficient and effective government services. They will hope next year’s report reveals some improvement and be grateful that at alst there is an independent measure of values for taxpayers’ dollar.