Page 1704 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
approach to government spending, on questioning the officials from Treasury we were not able to inform the committee as to how we would find evidence that a triple bottom line framework had been applied to this budget. We were told it was there but the fact that we could not find it was apparently something to do with our eyes. I do not know.
So the committee as a whole recommended that the framework by which triple bottom line was applied be published in the budget next year. But I go further and say that the ACT government should look at efforts in New Zealand—which is much further on this track than we are—in other countries, and no doubt other states and territories to see how they have developed a bottom line approach, so that we have a proper framework for next year’s budget, and so there is evidence that the government takes it seriously. At the moment there is no indication of that whatsoever.
Also, we need an indicator that requires an assessment of the climate change impact of spending allocations—for instance, the school closures. How did that impact on car use, for instance? Did people have to pull out their cars more often? Did bus services respond to funding? I do not know. Does the government know? Climate change is an important thing. We need more than just a strategy. We need to make sure it goes right across government. That is part of a triple bottom line approach.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (12.01): Firstly I thank the committee secretariat for all its dedication, commitment and hard work; for the ever-smiling Grace Concannon and the absolute, total diplomacy of Robina Jaffray, ably assisted by Lydia Chung, and of course to other secretariat staff who were involved. I note that Lydia took ill during the process. I hope she is feeling better now. I also thank the community groups and business organisations that not only appeared but spent their time putting forward submissions which, for organisations who are small, does take some effort. So thank you.
We have heard the overview of the estimates committee process from the perspective of the chair, Mr Gentleman. I make one comment at the beginning because it is a curious thing I find. Given this is the government’s budget, I find it curious in hindsight that the chair, a Labor MLA, did not recommend that his government’s budget be passed. Checking back, I found that it is the second year in a row where this has occurred. I will leave Mr Gentleman to explain that one away.
The deliberative stage of the proceedings saw the committee work professionally yet robustly, as other members have said, to produce the main report. Despite this, of course, there were some areas of disagreement and differing views. Hence the additional and dissenting report from Mr Stefaniak and me. Mr Stefaniak has now given an overview of our dissenting and additional comments along with some 120 recommendations.
As one member of the 2007-08 estimates committee, I was fully engaged with a team of my peers from this place to provide a measure of governance scrutiny on top of the complex process of financial appropriation for the territory. I listened intently to all the evidence presented to the committee. I posed questions and Mr Gentleman was keeping score. I think I must have asked the most, apparently. I do not know if that is still true. I posed many questions to aid my understanding of the facts. Whether I received full and frank answers to my questions was debatable in itself.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .