Page 3072 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
First, I refer to the additional comments by Ms Ellis. Ms Ellis denies that she had the opportunity to deliberate on the endorsement of the report. Madam Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. Following the conclusion of the public hearings of the Estimates Committee and the writing of the report, four meetings were scheduled for consideration of the report. On 23 October the format of the report was discussed by members. On the following Friday, 30 October, the first draft of the report, which had been made available to members during the week, was discussed. Ms Ellis was in attendance at the meeting. As members had not had sufficient time to consider the draft report, the meeting was adjourned until 11.00 am on Monday, 2 November.
At Monday's meeting, which Ms Ellis also attended, the committee members spent almost two hours considering the draft report. Several members were invited by me, as chair of the committee, to draft comments about specific key issues they had pursued at length during the public hearings, for the purpose of strengthening the report. In fact, Mr Humphries circulated his proposed addition to the report on unresponsive answers during this meeting on Monday, 2 November. It was at this time, at the conclusion of the meeting, that members agreed to a further scheduled meeting on Thursday, 5 November, at 8.30 am, to consider the final report.
Despite Ms Ellis being present at the meetings of 30 October and 2 November, she asserts that she had not had time to deliberate on the report. The reason she puts forward is the time she was spending on preparing for Social Policy Committee hearings scheduled for Wednesday, 4 November, and Thursday, 5 November. Members may be aware that I am also a member of the Social Policy Committee. I was away for only one hour of the public hearings, predominantly dealing with Mr Lamont's and Ms Ellis's concerns, and managed to complete my preparation for those hearings in addition to assisting in the finalisation of the Estimates Committee report. I might add that at the time the dates were discussed for the Social Policy Committee hearings, some months ago, I pointed out to my fellow committee members that these dates were close to when the Estimates Committee was due to report. Nevertheless, these dates were confirmed.
On the evening of Wednesday, 4 November, Ms Ellis did, indeed, come to see me, asking that the meeting scheduled for Thursday, 5 November, which she had been aware of since Monday, 2 November, be deferred until Friday, 6 November - the day on which the committee was due to report to the Speaker according to the committee's resolution of appointment, proposed by the Chief Minister, Ms Follett, and passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly on 11 August this year. Members, I can only conclude that Ms Ellis, like us, did have time to deliberate on the estimates report if she had chosen to do so.
To address Ms Ellis's specific references attached to her letter, she says that paragraphs 2.10 to 2.15 should be deleted. These paragraphs are those relating to unresponsive answers described on pages 4 and 5 of the report. Ms Ellis says that she was told that these paragraphs were written by Mr Humphries. Indeed, Ms Ellis was present at the meeting of Monday, 2 November, when Mr Humphries circulated these paragraphs for consideration. In the end it matters not that the paragraphs were written by Mr Humphries; the important point to be made is that the committee accepted the paragraphs, following amendment, as worthy of inclusion in the report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .