Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1743 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

This is a different issue from the issue we were discussing before, which related to competition policy. What we were talking about was a mechanism we thought the Government might effectively use in the implementation of competition policy, but here we are talking about reviewing something. I think the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee and the Government itself will all have a role in that, and I think they are the effective ways of doing it.

In relation to the amendment to the amendment circulated previously, as Mr Moore has already indicated, it is likely that the Planning and Environment Committee will look at the possibility of incorporating the environmental accounts, and probably in a lot more timely fashion than by 30 June 1999, and I would suggest that that is the appropriate way for that matter to be progressed.

MS TUCKER (6.26): I would just like to reiterate that, because of all the concerns I raised earlier about outputs and the role of government as a purchaser of outputs, having a formalised review process is very important. Mrs Carnell seems to think the Auditor-General's brief would be sufficient to cover that, but there is concern in the community that there might need to be a wider analysis. The Government says that it will be reviewing this legislation anyway, and well before three years; but will that review consider the impact of all these reforms on the quality of service delivery, or the impact of these reforms on broader objectives of government? This review would also be an opportunity to explore the possibility of introducing some other progressive accounting systems in the ACT; for example, human resource accounts - something else that a number of Scandinavian countries are pursuing vigorously. I certainly hope that there is some outside involvement and consultation in conducting this review and, at the very least, that it takes place across agencies.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 67 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 18 April 1996, on motion by Mrs Carnell:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .