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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3827 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

important. The major problem in our budgeting system and in what the government chooses to do is not whether the Treasurer is directing the department to fudge figures to make it look better. Auditing checks on whether the stated assumptions were carried through in the forecasts cannot guarantee that those forecasts will become a reality.

Forecasting is not precise. All members would be familiar with tales from the public service-whether federal or interstate-of end of financial year spend-ups to make use of full budget allocations. There is already a check and eventually there will be a result. The bill will introduce an extra update during the financial year and before an election. As I said earlier, the focus on fiscal responsibility in recent years has the potential of sidelining more fundamental responsibilities, creating and supporting an equitable, just and inclusive society, and ensuring that our ecological impacts are steadily reduced. The most basic reality facing the human species is that, through our pursuit of economic growth as the measure of all that is good, we are destroying the very basis for our existence on this planet. I refer to a common phrase that is to be found on many T-shirts: Good planets are hard to come by. Similarly, the increasing social inequity that we have seen in this country will lead to further damage to our capacity to live in a sustainable way.

Of course the money must be managed prudently, but that aim must not overshadow more fundamental mismanagement. For that reason I would prefer to see an increase in resources related to budgeting to be put into developing the budgetary system to take account of environmental, health and social issues. That might require additional resourcing for the Office of Sustainability. It may also require additional resourcing and skills for the Office of the Auditor-General, which already has the statutory responsibility to consider ecological sustainability in audits. This requirement to audit budgets might lead to an increased role and to additional resources for the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment.

This government has to address the size of the public service as a result of cuts that were imposed by the former Liberal government. Much of its research and policy capabilities has been reduced and it is difficult for it to do important work. A focus on immediate fiscal returns will ignore the longer-term benefits of having a certain amount of fat in the department in the form of capacity or corporate memory. What is required is a strong team that knows what is going on so that if and when someone leaves no holes are left. We have been told by the Treasurer's office that Treasury is already stretched. It needs additional resources if it is to implement changes and include triple bottom-line auditing and gender auditing.

I do not support Mr Smyth's amendment. While I firmly believe that there is merit in the proposal, it does not address the most pressing need in our budgetary system. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts must inquire into this matter. We need a better understanding of it. I was pleased to hear the Treasurer refer today to the measures that he has taken to introduce triple bottom-line reporting. However, I would also like an acknowledgment from him that he recognises the resource implications of this proposal. We require full gender analyses so that we can do the work that we are required to do. Triple bottom-line reporting requires additional resources. Those are the issues on which this government should be focusing.

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