Page 2386 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
something that the government ought to be in. There were concerns about the handling of service contracts that also became the subject of a comment in the committee’s report.
In my remaining time, I will highlight the fact that the Stadiums Authority also came to our attention. I guess the issue here was determining the correct way of recognising the cost of running that facility—whether paying subsidies via various sporting teams and then having that money paid back into the stadium is really not kidding yourself in terms of robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. If the facility is only commercially viable by running these re-routed subsidies to the authority, then you need to look closely at the way it is operating, simply have transparency in the accounts and acknowledge that the facility is costing X million dollars by way of loss to the taxpayer. You have to let the community at large have all the facts on which they can pass comment.
Concern was raised by Dr Foskey on a matter that neither I nor, I believe, Mr Seselja, was aware of and that is that the Canberra Stadium has some safety issues. We have now discovered that in fact they will not be rectified until 2008. This was dismissed, I must say, in a rather cavalier manner by the witness representing the authority and that did not leave any member of the committee impressed. It was subsequently revealed through a reply to a question that there were matters concerning safety. I think we are indebted to Dr Foskey for bringing this to our attention and having the foresight to pursue that matter through the course of the estimates hearings.
Those are my views on the estimates that relate to Treasury. I think the Treasurer has his work cut out in trying to encourage his colleague Mr Corbell to live within his health budget, which we will come to later. I did not gain the distinct impression that Mr Corbell is as enthusiastic about the level of constraint he will have to adhere to. But as they say in the classics, time will tell.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.07): Mr Speaker, I want to talk about sustainability indicators. I wish to raise under this line the new reporting process for the 2005-06 budget—the new measures that were introduced in an attempt to incorporate sustainability concepts into the budget process. Firstly, I think the government needs to be congratulated for its initiative in this regard, because it is not an easy thing to do.
Quite rightly, in this year’s guide to changes in the budget presentation it was pointed out that “the government will continue to develop the financial management framework to incorporate triple bottom line sustainability principles”. The guide also flags two important points: firstly, these new reporting processes will continue to be discussed with stakeholders, recognising the divergent views on what constitutes sustainability; and secondly, the new indicators will form the basis for the development of cross-agency performance indicators and linkages to planning and reporting frameworks. Both of these aspects are incredibly important. Again, I hope the government continues down the path of exploring the best ways of incorporating sustainability principles into the budget process and budget papers.
The budget estimates committee recommended that the government undertake a whole-of-government review of the whole approach in a transparent and clear way. I support this and hope that it happens. It is also important, however, that we remember and remind ourselves what the original intent of the process was, and that was to incorporate sustainability concepts and principles into the budget process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .