Page 975 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
contracting with. Whilst it is good to see small steps like these being taken, it is sobering to reflect on the fact that whole-of-product lifecycle approaches have been practised and legislated for over a decade in Germany and other countries.
I am even hoping that here, finally, is an opportunity for the government to expand on its catalogue of four or five unfairly, underappreciated climate crisis measures that we hear about every time the topic is raised, the so-called raft of measures the Chief Minister alluded to at the last sitting. But a raft is an unfortunate and quite possibly a telling metaphor. In fact, we are going to need an ark—a craft with decking, a keel and a rudder—not some piece of flotsam cobbled together out of four or five threadbare planks drifting aimlessly, as rafts do, at the mercy of the increasingly hostile elements. But, despite my reservations, which are on the record, I do applaud each of the government’s positive initiatives because every small step is welcome.
One step that the Greens have been pursuing is the implementation of a more holistic system attributing value to government actions and purchases. While the global reporting initiative and quadruple bottom line accounting are where world’s best practice are heading, triple bottom line accounting would represent a mighty improvement on the single bottom line obsession that applies now.
The Auditor-General endorsed triple bottom line accounting principles a few years ago and the Chief Minister echoed her endorsement in annual reports hearings in 2005. These amendments have the potential to give some substance to the Chief Minister’s verbal commitment two years ago to implement more comprehensive accounting principles. But they will require strong ministerial support to realise their potential in this regard.
Unfortunately, 2006 saw a virtual halt to progress down the sustainability path, with the government pulling funding from social and environmental initiatives under the cover of the functional review. While the government refuses to release any of the functional review it is impossible to form an accurate judgment as to whether it was based on a sound reasoning or even if it was financially competent. But one thing is clear: the functional review is not based on triple bottom line reasoning; it was based on immediate or short-term monetary savings and as such it may cost us dearly for many years to come. Hopefully, any future functional review will assess government functions and practices in light of a longer-term and more holistic perspective.
A large proportion of the territory’s procurement functions have been incorporated into the procurement services unit. I hope that the procurement services unit take the potential of these changes to heart and help foster an awareness and commitment to these principles throughout the rest of the public service. I think their enabling legislation still gives them the power to pursue this agenda. I say this because one amendment that does raise some concern is clause 9, which among other things removes responsibility from the procurement board for “assisting in the development of training and development courses and activities relevant to the procurement and disposal activities of Territory entities”.
This amendment raises concern because it throws responsibility for implementing these new approaches to procurement onto the individual agencies. This means that it will depend on the resources, understanding and enthusiasm of agency heads for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .