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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 30 ..

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: I move:

That the report be authorised for publication.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR SMYTH: I move:

That the report be noted.

The annual reports process is always interesting. I thank committee members for their approach to the process and for the positive way in which they viewed the annual reports and determined what they wanted to achieve in this report. As can be seen in recommendations 1 to 4, we wanted to make these reports more useful and accessible. We wanted to get rid of some of the promotional, glossy pictures and material that have invaded annual reports of all jurisdictions over the past few years. We have asked departments and agencies to comply with the Chief Minister’s annual reports directions in regard to the use of graphics and promotional information.

Whilst that information is useful, that is not what annual reports are about. The deficiencies that have been noted in this place for many years—to her credit, Ms Tucker has always been an advocate of these issues—are covered by recommendations 3 and 4. Some useful information is also contained in the report, in particular lists of the people on advisory boards and committees, their length of service and when their membership is due to expire. That gives us a better picture of the people on those boards, how long they have been there, what they offer and when those boards might change.

Given the earlier ministerial statement, in recommendation 4 the committee recommended that a list of all government inquiries or reviews relevant to the portfolio or the annual report and their status be included in the appendix to annual reports. We need references to the body of the text so that we know what stage each inquiry or review has reached, how it is being dealt with, what recommendations have been made and how those recommendations have been followed up. Members have asked for that information to be included in a number of reports. It would be a good thing if it were included.

I am sure that other members will expand on recommendation 5. Some serious concern has been expressed about the government’s commitment to the Office of Sustainability. Representatives from the Office of Sustainability said that they are not consulted on every cabinet submission. They then pick and choose which of the cabinet submissions they will respond to from the submissions that are referred to them—probably because of resourcing issues. Those members who are serious about sustainability would know that it concerns every area of every portfolio.

Clearly, the Office of Sustainability either does not have the resources or it does not have the independence to do that. Recommendation 5 states that the Office of Sustainability should be made independent of government and it should be resourced sufficiently to

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