Page 493 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (11.57): I rise to support Mr Moore's motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Unlike Mr Kaine, I have the view that the matter does fall within the terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Kaine read out the first term of reference of the Public Accounts Committee; he did not read out the second and third. They state:
(2) Report to the Assembly, with such comments as it thinks fit, any items or matters in those accounts, statements and reports, or any circumstances connected with them to which the committee is of the opinion that the attention of the Assembly should be directed;
(3) Inquire into any question in connection with the public accounts which is referred to it by the Assembly and to report to the Assembly on that question.
There is no doubt in my mind that the matter Mr Moore has raised comes within those terms of reference, albeit generally. Nevertheless, I have to say that my support for Mr Moore's motion was considerably stronger before he spoke than it is now that he has spoken. I find it regrettable that both Mr Moore and Mr Kaine have sought to debate the merits of this reference. That is quite wrong. The only matter under debate is whether it is a suitable topic for the Public Accounts Committee, not whether there is or is not truth in the assertions.
Mr Moore, unfortunately in my view, in his speech has inferred from one example only that there is a practice of overestimating and, further, that that practice has led to a slush fund. I think those remarks were as irrelevant to this debate as were the majority of Mr Kaine's remarks. Mr Kaine's remarks, delivered in the style of a diatribe, would lead any reasonable person to wonder what on earth he is covering up. Whilst it appears to me that, on the merits of the motion, it does fall within the terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee, I believe that both protagonists in this debate have drawn their lines and that it would be very difficult indeed for them to retreat from their positions in any objective assessment of the matter Mr Moore has raised.
I repeat that I support the motion because, in my view, it falls within the terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee. If you want it examined, that is the place to examine it, not in some sort of competing debate across the floor of this chamber, as we have seen from both Mr Moore and Mr Kaine - very regrettably, in my view.
Motion (by Mr Berry) negatived.
That the question be now put.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .