Page 3074 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Paragraph 4.20 concerns the usefulness of performance indicators, particularly those of the Office of Public Sector Management. Mr Kaine's comment was an important one and a different point from mine. Ms Ellis quotes my view as being different. I would have thought that if the issue was important enough I would have sought to amend this paragraph myself. Necessarily, comments made during the course of public hearings as they later appear in the report are selective, otherwise the entire 67 hours of transcript would be included in the report.
Let me turn to Mrs Grassby's additional comments. Mrs Grassby also asserts that she was denied the opportunity to debate a range of issues prior to the adoption of the report. For the record, Mrs Grassby was also present at the private meetings of the committee on Friday, 30 October, and Monday, 2 November. It is interesting that Mrs Grassby advised Mr Lamont that she would be unavailable for the meeting on Thursday, 5 November, but neither me, the committee chair, nor the committee secretary, Ms Malmberg. Even though ill, Mrs Grassby managed to attend and participate in public hearings of both the Drugs Committee and the Social Policy Committee during that week. However, she was apparently too ill to consider the report of the Estimates Committee.
Mrs Grassby: I was not ill. I had a doctor's appointment. Tell the truth.
Mr Humphries: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I believe that Mrs Grassby used the expression, "Don't lie". I think that is unparliamentary. I would ask her to withdraw it.
Mrs Grassby: I will withdraw it, but I would like Ms Szuty to say exactly what was said to her. I had a doctor's appointment which I could not put off. She was not told that I was ill.
MS SZUTY: That point was never made to me, Mrs Grassby. To address Mrs Grassby's specific references attached to her letter, the suggested inclusion at paragraph 2.9 expands the paragraph to add a little more information. It could well have been added, but really it is a minor matter. The issue of the Minister for Health taking on notice a question on waiting lists and then reappearing before the Estimates Committee at a later date was discussed during the committee's deliberations as to whether this statement was complete enough. The committee decided that it was.
There is no first dot point in paragraph 3.58. Mrs Grassby appears to have referred to paragraph 3.59 and the subsequent paragraph 3.60, which suggests that the Estimates Committee will have all the staffing information it wants by July 1994. Presumably in the meantime, members, the Estimates Committee should be satisfied with what information it is currently not being provided with. Mrs Grassby then refers to the draft report of the Estimates Committee for her next statement, which obviously contains typographical errors and is different from the final statement as it is included in the final version of the report. The subprogram information provided for program 12.2 Legal Aid supports the comments expressed by the committee.
Finally, let me turn to Mr Lamont's additional comments and address first the second letter addressed to me. This letter expressing concern about the meeting of the Estimates Committee on the morning of Thursday, 5 November, as decided on Monday, 2 November, by the committee, was delivered to my office while the meeting was in progress - a letter of which I was obviously unaware. Mr Lamont
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .