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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1945 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I am very pleased to see that the Government will be developing appropriate performance measures in relation to the environmental impact of tourism events. The Greens' amendments to the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation Bill have hopefully paved the way for a greater focus on the environment, and I hope that the proposed environmental subcommittee goes ahead and that some very effective strategies are in place so that the ACT's precious natural environment is protected. I must say I was surprised in the Estimates Committee hearings when I was informed that the evaluation of the car rally had been carried out by the head of the people who actually ran the rally. This is obviously not at all appropriate.

Another recommendation that the Government did not get right was in relation to performance indicators. The Government seems to think we were asking that every performance target should be cross-referenced in the budget overview. That was not what we were asking. We were talking about the need to ensure that all Government targets - for example, the progress towards meeting the target of no waste in the year 2010 - are reported on in the budget. I think this is an entirely reasonable and sensible suggestion. We also look forward to seeing a vast improvement in performance indicators, and less farcical indicators, such as 100 per cent for policy advice when there has been an Ombudsman's report slamming the Government's performance in this area. I am also pleased to see that the Government has finally agreed to produce a separate environment budget, and we look forward to much better reporting on the environment in next year's budget. If the environment were really a priority for this Government, I do not think we would have to be making recommendations such as this.

With regard to the recommendation about Bruce Stadium, once again this is agreed, but in practice it is likely that commercial-in-confidence provisions will mean that the Assembly does not really get access to very much information. This is an ongoing problem. In relation to other issues raised by the committee, the Government still appears to be in denial about calling the ACTEW return to the shareholders a form of borrowing. Once again, they denied any hypocrisy in their position by saying that, as owners and shareholders, government has responsibility in terms of setting the strategic directions and overall economic performance of the corporation, consistent with the appropriate management of community resources. If they can intervene in economic matters, why not intervene in relation to ACTEW's environmental performance?

The Government did not respond to the comments made by the committee in relation to the need for additional resourcing to alternative education facilities in the ACT. On mandatory reporting, the Government did respond to the comments made by the committee, but they still do not seem to acknowledge that the community sector is already under severe stress and even a small increase in workload could be too much to handle. Obviously, the Social Policy Committee will be able to examine these issues in more detail.

Moving on to issues in relation to the budget as a whole, I think a critical issue today is that this is a government that has come to power promising council-style government, but they have delivered three budgets without any real attempt to seek meaningful involvement from other members of the Assembly. This year I was invited to discuss it with Mrs Carnell eight days before the budget was finished. I think it was ready for the printer at that time. It is really a bit of a joke. This is about consultation and having input

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