Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

argued and accurately costed in a timely and orderly process. This will allow Cabinet’s decisionmaking to be supported by clear and robust briefing from officials and Ministerial staff.Spending Between BudgetsThere are already, for example, clear and sensible rules about how the Budget and Cabinetprocesses are supposed to operate in relation to the bringing forward of spending proposaloutside the Budget context. There will inevitably be urgent and unforeseen matters thatrequire urgent consideration, and perhaps even commitment of new funding betweenBudgets. That said a more orderly process for “business as usual” would enhance theACTPS’s and Cabinet’s capacity to deal with those sorts of matters.In the context of the Government‘s plan to return the Budget to surplus, there is even morereason to enforce these rules strictly. The risk of ad hoc decision making is that itundermines the capacity of the Budget Committee of Cabinet, on advice from the ACTPS(and the proposed Chief Minister’s Department in particular), to weigh up competingdemands for resourcing and attention. When taken in isolation, each case can be compelling.Side by side, and in light of articulated strategic priorities, the decisions may well bedifferent. Furthermore, forcing consideration of spending through the Budget cyclefacilitates consideration of offsetting savings if necessary to secure the broader fiscal policygoals of the Government. Indeed, even for urgent and unforeseen matters, the requirementsfor Ministers to bring forward realistic offsetting savings proposals at the same time as theproposed urgent measure should be rigidly enforced. To do so makes explicit the trade-offsor reprioritisation to which the Budget Committee of Cabinet is being asked to agree.Evaluation and ReviewDespite the efforts that go into the annual Budget processes, in all jurisdictions it is anexercise conducted at the margins. Rarely is the ongoing business of government, orprograms that have been in place for some time subjected to the same scrutiny as newincremental spending proposals. In light of the Evaluation Framework, the preferableapproach in most cases would be to commit to new programs for a limited period, subject toproper evaluation and review in due course. This approach would allow the Government toconsider the effectiveness of its initiatives, and the need (if any) to continue those programs,modify them, or allocate those resources to other priority areas.While for estimates maintenance purposes, funding might be included in the forwardestimates, the rigour imposed by proper evaluation, consideration of continuing relevance andalignment with government priorities, and the opportunity to consider meaningfulperformance information would add significantly to the Budget Committee of Cabinet’sdecision making process.Evaluation reviews would need to be completed and considered well before funding is due torun out, to provide certainty to non-government bodies and allow them to continue to managethe program including in relation to workforce planning to avoid service gaps.Strategy, Resource Allocation and the Vacant Middle Ground: 234