Page 4279 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN: The fact that I was in the military, Mrs Grassby, does not necessarily mean that I am to the right of Genghis Khan, as you may wish to say. However, I just thought I would make that point because I think it is important that there is a process by which the role of executive government can be reviewed.
When the Senate established the estimates committees in 1961 there was some criticism, suggesting that it evaded the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. However, while there may still be some concern in some quarters, the process is now an accepted part of parliamentary practice in Australia, and I am sure it will be a major part of that process here in the ACT.
One fact that may have been overlooked in the discussions and comparison between the estimates committee process in the ACT and the processes in other parliaments, specifically the Federal Parliament, is that in the ACT all - and I repeat, all - Ministers appear before the committee; unlike in the Federal Parliament where the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, for example, are able to duck the committee and pass the buck to the senators that represent them in the Senate. This report clearly shows that in the ACT Ministers were required to appear before the Estimates Committee to have their appropriations looked at.
Another aspect in this Assembly was the decision taken by the committee to allow questioning by non-committee members. You may recall, Mr Speaker, that last year,s Estimates Committee, which looked at the budget of a minority government in fact, was made up of all members of the Opposition. In this particular case it was decided that it was appropriate for non-executive members to be in a position to ask questions of the Ministers in accordance with the standing orders, which provide for that to take place. And that did take place. While I must admit that at some times some members of the Opposition probably sought to make a little bit of a meal of that provision, I think that by and large it worked reasonably well. I might even suggest that it might not be inappropriate for other members to participate in some of the hearings of other committees as well, particularly in an area that interests them.
I want to now move on to the fact that there was criticism in some quarters about the time taken. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the Estimates Committee sat for - certainly in public hearings - twice as many hours as it did last year. I guess there were a couple of reasons for that. One was that last year it was a new Assembly; we had been in operation for a period of only seven months, and many of us were still finding our way around the parliamentary process, if you like. This year, of course, more of us were more familiar with the process and we had had a little more time as a group to consider the process. That is one of the reasons why I believe the proceedings took a little longer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .