Page 2354 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have yet to see much evidence that the departments and other agencies are working with Treasury to produce measurable performance indicators that are meaningful and that can be tracked along the years. By the way, one of the indicators that is suggested in this proposed framework, which I applaud—it is prescient—is that among measuring environmental objectives—the objectives of reduced ecological impact—a TBL measure could be greenhouse gas emissions per day. Hey, that was three years ago, but I do not think we are doing it. There are many places in the budget where indicators were changed from last year to this year, making it difficult to measure any improvements or even see where we might be going backwards, although this is a good opportunity to note that it was disturbing just how many indicators simply did not have any improvements planned, and old targets were simply continued—old targets that were too easily met.
I think we are falling behind in two ways: first, we have not quite figured out how it works or how to report it; and, second, we are basing our budget not on actual improvements but rather on status quo. (Second speaking period taken.) If we take into account that we need to repair some of the damage done by last year’s drastic cuts, it is not even a status quo budget. I note that recommendation 9—and I referred to this earlier—“that future budgets articulate the framework used to apply triple bottom line principles” was finally getting to the heart of the matter. I am very disappointed that the government chose to misunderstand the nature of the project. While there was a framework for triple bottom line budgeting produced a couple of years ago which we could refer to, it is not applied throughout the budget in a rigorous or a transparent manner.
While I note that the government has reminded us that it is up to the Auditor-General to determine its priorities, I would have preferred the government to share my enthusiasm for an Auditor-General review of progress in relation to triple bottom line reporting and budgeting, and I look forward to seeing the results. I do believe the Auditor-General is taking on that job—not, apparently, because the government asked her to but because that is one of the criticisms that she had of the budget. There is no evidence of it.
I also look forward to one day seeing the secret functional review. One wonders what it contains so that it has to be kept so top secret. Maybe it will be one of those things that we see from the archives in 25 years time. In estimates, we had discussions about the ACT government’s use of the wage price index for increases as opposed to the consumer price index. I would like to reiterate that it is important to ensure that we are not discriminating against people on fixed incomes.
I would also like to point out that one of the biggest losers when it comes to indexation is the community sector. The sector suffers from charges being increased by the wage price index, but its funding rises according to CPI—and that is not all grants, mind you. In particular, I am concerned for the community groups who argued that the 3.75 per cent indexation on their funding fell short of addressing their ongoing problems of not being able to provide adequate services for those in need—a group that has increased since last year’s funding cuts. That is something that echoes throughout most departments—at least with those who provide community grants.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .