Page 2724 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He used to have the reputation of being arrogant and out of touch—and that indeed has not changed, and we have seen that with the attack on the Auditor-General—but there is increasingly a losing grip on reality about it, this idea of a conspiracy between the Liberal Party and the Canberra Times to bring him down, this conspiracy to talk the Chief Minister’s programs down. It has nothing to do with the quality of what the Chief Minister is doing; it has nothing to do with the quality of his work. We have the conspiracy theory.
We saw throughout estimates the lowering of the bar of ministerial standards and the politicisation of the public service. In fact, Mr Hargreaves looks at me. I have got to say we did not have anything on Mr Hargreaves; well done to Mr Hargreaves; he is the one minister out of five who did not get sprung in totally politicising the public service during this estimates. We cannot say it did not happen. I am not going to vouch for him and say it did not happen; all I will say is there was no evidence. But we saw it for Mr Stanhope, we saw it for Ms Gallagher, we saw it for Mr Corbell and we saw it for Mr Barr. Well done, Mr Hargreaves; you are the only one who did not get caught; you are the only one who did not get caught on the record as politicising the public service.
The Chief Minister has lowered the bar. He now comes in. I will reserve my second 10 minutes.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (5.00): The ACT Greens and the estimates committee have been advised that responsibility for triple-bottom-line assessment reporting has transferred to the Chief Minister’s Department. When I talk about triple-bottom-line assessment reporting, I am referring not just to the economic issues but of course also to the social and environmental issues.
There appears to be some indecision, from the answers supplied at estimates, as to how best to incorporate this into a budget framework, along with strategic and accountability reporting indicators. Indeed, the committee expressed concern that it was not clear whether this process would be sufficiently established and robust enough to frame the next budget.
We note that the estimates committee has recommended that the Financial Management Act 1996 be amended to require, in future budgets, a statement about how the budget has taken into account the object of ecologically sustainable development, including greenhouse gas emission reduction. I note this recommendation has not been agreed to, and the reason given was that there is already a chapter in the budget on sustainability. But I do raise some issues and concerns about whether that is enough and, really, that is what we are talking about.
We understand that there are complexities in sustainability assessment and reporting. Other jurisdictions are taking up this challenge. For too many years now we have heard filibuster on this matter. Movement on this needs to happen as a priority and in time for incorporation in the 2010-11 budget papers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .