Page 3796 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not understand the logic for the proposed amendment, other than a desire to impose upon government, in fact, upon departments, an amount of work that will really produce very little by way of true information. Information science dictates that, before any data effectively can be defined as information, it has to be useful and be capable of engendering some decision-making processes. I have previously stated in the in-principle debate that it was I, in opposition, who reduced it from monthly reporting to quarterly reporting because the monthly reports were absolutely useless. They were just records of cash payments. They were not sets of accounts at all.
To prepare a set of accounts as at a given balance date, whatever that date might be, is quite a horrendous job. It is not a simple job. It is not a matter of a little fix to the system. There are a whole lot of accounting provisions and measurements that need to be taken to produce those statements. That is why we have a couple of months to do them at the end of the year. It would take the same amount of work to do those statements once a quarter as it would to do it at the end of the year. I cannot see the logic of what the opposition is trying to achieve.
As I have said, this is not about trying to hide anything. You will get a half-yearly report. You will get an estimate in the budget of the expected outcome that will take into account everything that has happened in the three quarters. As well, it will incorporate events that are likely to occur between then and the end of the financial year. I think it is a far more sensible system to have reports that members of the Assembly can actually use, rather than forcing the treasury department to jump through hoops just for the sake of it.
Amendment negatived.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.37): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
DR FOSKEY: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3812].
The ACT Greens were delighted when triple bottom line accounting was identified as a goal of this government. Time and again, however, when the issue of its implementation is raised, we are reminded that the ACT is right out there, no one else is really doing it and no one can offer us a model of how to approach it ourselves. I am concerned that this attitude is getting in the way of some fairly simple first steps towards getting there.
Members might notice that amendment No 1 does not insist on board appointments incorporating a certain set of skills. It simply asks that the minister try to ensure that the members appointed have, between them, the experience and expertise to allow the governing board to consider the social and environmental impact of the territory authority’s policies, strategies and actions. If we are to proceed to develop a way of running our government agencies so that they pursue triple bottom line objectives and account for their endeavours through triple bottom line accounting and by addressing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .