Page 4292 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, I reiterate that credit is due to Mr Jensen and other members of the committee for taking it issue by issue and not doing it on a political basis. I believe that it was not done on that basis. I believe that was why we were able to have a completely bipartisan, no dissenting report committee. There were some additional comments, but they were just that - additional comments, not dissenting comments at all.
The most important function of the Estimates Committee is accountability. I believe that what has happened in the ACT, through the very thorough work of this Estimates Committee, through this very thorough and lengthy report, is that people in government and people in the public service are aware that whatever they do will be scrutinised at some stage or at least will be open to scrutiny and that scrutiny is open to public comment.
That brings me to one of the minor difficulties of the Estimates Committee. Because of the way it was put together in the original motion, it was left in a position where there was some doubt as to whether it actually had the right of parliamentary privilege. I think that that is something that ought be corrected next year.
Mr Collaery: Before you go off - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Collaery!
MR MOORE: I am glad I hear Mr Collaery interject. It is an issue that I thought I should raise this evening. It is an issue that I raised in question time today in a perfectly reasonable way. I questioned the Chief Minister. Mr Collaery had inappropriately acquitted a particular part of the travel allowance - not through his fault, I quite accept that, but through the advice of the public servants who said that they had given inappropriate advice. However, there is a particular part - the acquittal of Mr Collaery,s basic equipment allowance - that clearly stands out separately from the rest of that acquittal. He is not entitled to that particular equipment allowance, in any sense of the way I can see it, and I believe it is appropriate for that money to be returned to the ACT Government.
Today I gave the Chief Minister the opportunity to do so. I pointed out in my supplementary question that section 73 and section 14 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act would bring into question whether or not Mr Collaery would be entitled to his seat. Instead of pursuing the matter along those lines, I have suggested instead, in an appropriate way, that Mr Collaery look at this particular small part of the allowance and that he return the money to the people of the ACT.
Mr Collaery: I challenge you to repeat that outside the house.
MR MOORE: That is the particular issue. Mr Collaery challenges me to say that outside the house.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .