Page 4318 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Estimates Committee. From this Government we have a very qualified response - it may or may not, depending on how easy it is. That is not good enough. If we are to have accountability, it is essential that that information is made available in a timely fashion to all members and the public.
In relation to recommendation (2) of the Estimates Committee, namely, that the papers be made more user friendly and that a questionnaire be included in the budget papers, and further recommendations concerning the provision of a special committee of this Assembly to look at those matters, again the Government's response is fudged. It has not agreed to those recommendations. I think that must be of concern to the chairman of the Estimates Committee and all members of this Assembly. It has fudged its response.
On another important matter on which the Estimates Committee made a recommendation, concerning the use of consultants, Mr Speaker, I have taken note of Mr Kaine,s undertaking to have a joint review of the consultancy arrangements to ensure that the best value for money is obtained by the use of consultants; but I do not agree with the response that we are simply to have yet another set of guidelines. We have had draft guidelines for heaven knows how long, but the problem has always been that they have not been used.
Mr Kaine knows, as well as anybody, that the hiring, selection and payment of consultants has always been done on an extremely ad hoc basis which denies accountability. So it is not the holding of yet another review and the drawing up of yet more guidelines that is the issue here; it is the implementation of them, the policing, if you like, of those arrangements which are estimated to cost some $10m. I raise that as another area of concern to which I do not believe that the Government has responded adequately.
Mr Speaker, I would like to make one further comment, and that is in relation to the very many and very inaccurate statements made about travel in the course of this totally farcical debate. Both Mr Duby and Mr Collaery have made quite wrong statements, in my view. An analysis of the information on travel which was tabled reveals that the facts could be somewhat embarrassing to the Government. If we have a look at the figures that have been tabled by Mr Collaery, I think, we can see that the Alliance members have spent, on Assembly business, a total of $36,908, and Mrs Nolan leads the charge with over $9,000 spent on Assembly travel.
Mrs Nolan: I sit on the greatest number of committees.
MS FOLLETT: Assembly business includes committee business, Mrs Nolan. (Extension of time granted) Mr Speaker, I ask you to compare that $36,000, or nearly $37,000, spent by Alliance members with the $12,014 spent by the Labor members.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .