Page 1131 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The terms of reference provide that the entire report must have regard to agreed government priorities. I would like to know what those agreed priorities were. I would like to know whether environmental and social concerns had priority befitting their importance. Was the review carried out through the prism of a narrow classically economic perspective? Was a commitment to triple bottom line accounting a feature of the report or did it focus solely on economic indicators? Such an approach means that revenue from sources like gambling, tobacco and cigarette sales is recorded as a positive and desirable thing, as it ignores the inherent social and personal costs of such activities. Such an approach also focuses on short-term outcomes, advocating short-term revenue sources while ignoring long-term costs.
In order to make informed decisions on these matters, we need to see the report. We need to know what instructions were given to Mr Costello. We need to know what alternatives were considered and proffered by him and his team. Without this information how can community, business and private commentators effectively participate in the political process and have the benefit of their informed input utilised in the budget process? Surely this government recognise that public input into their decision-making process is a good thing. I just heard Mr Corbell table the human rights compatibility statement discussion paper. He said:
The ACT bill demonstrates that when a government makes the effort to ensure genuine community consultation and when it takes the time to get it right, it is more than possible to achieve—
in this case—
true human security legislation.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why would a government not want as much free advice and learned counsel as possible? A self-professed progressive government like this one should not play its cards so close to its chest that no one else gets an opportunity to advise it on how to play the game. Mind you, while this is not actually a game, there are winners and losers. Those organisations and political interests that get a peek at the recommendations and findings of reports like this one are obviously in a superior position to defend their interests over those who are kept in the dark.
Withholding this report from everyone would not be so bad if there were good reasons for doing so, but we now learn that Mr Costello has given select business and union interests direct briefings on the contents of the report. Who authorised these briefings? Who drew up the guest list? Where were the social, education, health and environmental body representatives—in short, the community sector? Why have they not received a briefing or an invitation to learn what the budgetary agenda now looks like? Governments should not play favourites like this. If the detail of the report can be released to one section of society, it should be released to all.
Stephen Bartos, who writes for “The Public Sector Informant” has been quoted today. I note that Mr Stanhope likes Mr Bartos when he is saying good things about the government and does not like him when he is not. As Stephen Bartos wrote in the last “Public Sector Informant”, the government risks being grouped with the obsessively
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .