Page 2179 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND PLANNING -
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1991-92
Paper
Debate resumed from 19 August 1992, on motion by Mr Wood:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.56): I am pleased to be able to talk this morning about this report. I believe that the departmental officers who compiled it should be congratulated, on two counts. First of all, it is an excellent and comprehensive report; and, secondly, it was delivered within the three months' period established by the Chief Minister's guidelines for the presentation of departmental reports. The department and those people who compiled the report are to be congratulated.
Having read the report very thoroughly, there are some things I would like to make particular comment about. First of all, other departments could take note of it. It is an attractive report and it makes a great deal of information available. It has a variety of illustrations, including 28 photographs and eight other illustrations. I understand that the Chief Minister's guidelines call for simple documents that report on the departmental performance over the year, referring specifically to objectives and performance indicators in other accountability documents such as the budget papers, forward estimates and corporate plans. The annual reports, I understand, are not to be used as promotional tools or as political documents. The presentation of this report does raise a question about whether it is only an accountability assessment paper or a marketing tool. I make that point because in some cases I think it goes beyond accountability and assessment. It is a matter the department may care to review.
Without going through a count of the people in the photographs, I wonder whether they fulfil the Government's view about equal promotion of the value of women and men in the work force. The men probably outnumber the women in this book, and maybe we need a little better balance next year. A very cursory glance at the illustrations supports the fact that there is a male dominance, and perhaps that is not reflected in the department itself. It may be that the compilers got the balance wrong. I would like to comment on one other aspect in connection with the photographs, however, and that is whether or not the report has been politicised to some extent. There are 10 photographs of politicians in this book. Mr Wood appears five times - I do not blame him for doing a bit of self-advertising - and Ms Follett appears twice. Interestingly, Mr Howe, a Federal Minister, appears once; Mrs Kelly appears once; and Mr Hawke, the ex-politician, appears once.
Ms Follett: And Dame Pattie Menzies. You missed Dame Pattie.
MR KAINE: She is not a politician. There is a very broad spread of politicians, but I notice that they all belong to the same party. Maybe in terms of equality and equal participation, we will have lots of other photographs in next year's report. I might have to have a word to the secretary - if I am allowed to talk to him - to see whether we can get equal time and equal opportunity next year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .