Page 4407 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to refer to a couple of comments that Mrs Grassby made in her dissenting report and which I believe were quite gratuitous and uncalled for. She says, for example, that the majority of criticisms can be seen as "clearly political in nature". I would refute that. I think the Estimates Committee processes were carried through in a non-partisan way. For Mrs Grassby to inject the partisan philosophy in her dissenting report, I think, is uncalled for.
She says that some of the things were factually incorrect. In her statement she rejects the assertion that the Minister for Health chose to avoid answering direct questions. The committee was factually correct. He did it in the Estimates Committee and he does it on the floor of this house. That is one of the reasons why he is not sitting there now. For Mrs Grassby to assert that that is not factually correct is, of course, not factually correct.
In her gratuitous comments she says that the committee does not appear to know the meaning of the word "equity". For a government to implement an inequitable decision in connection with the three private schools and then accuse the committee of not knowing what equity is, I think, a little ironic, to say the least. I think that Mrs Grassby's comments, regrettably, add nothing whatsoever to the debate.
MRS NOLAN (4.52): Mr Speaker, this year the Estimates Committee found their task, I believe, a mammoth one, particularly because much of the information requested from the Ministers and officials was not readily available. In many cases that information was not received until the report was almost finalised. I will elaborate further on that a little later.
Because of the short timeframe available, the committee's report has not addressed specific areas in perhaps the detail some of us consider necessary. That only some areas have been addressed in the report in no way reflects the committee's concerns or individual members' concerns regarding areas other than those appearing in the report.
One particular concern of mine and other members of the committee, as I mentioned earlier, was the inability to recall witnesses. This certainly should have been done with regard to the tourism portfolio. However, answers to questions taken on notice were not received until the day before the committee's reporting date, which I and, I think, the entire committee consider to be most unsatisfactory. This concern was specifically addressed in the report, and I refer members to paragraph 3.19.
In the short time available for me today I would like to address specifically three areas where I believe the budget will greatly impact because of the reduced funding levels. They are the areas of tourism, non-government schools and policing. I must also mention an area where I believe the Government could make substantial savings, and that is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .