Page 4000 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 23 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: Unfortunately, I would be ruled out of order if I did, Mr Berry. Maybe you could use your imagination here. It appears that the information that was given was somewhat embellished when it came to looking at the actual costs in this year's Estimates Committee. I think the rest of the committee would share my concern at that sort of approach.
Mr Berry: No. You are talking about the revenue side, aren't you?
Mr De Domenico: Just ignore him. Everybody else does.
MRS CARNELL: Okay. Everyone else does; I accept that. The committee was putting forward that that sort of an approach to the Estimates Committee is not what we would expect. I hope that it did not happen this year, Madam Speaker.
The other area that I would like to speak about tonight is the Health Promotion Fund. The most positive recommendation put forward was that the level of the Health Promotion Fund be set at a percentage of the tobacco franchise fee - assuming that we still have a tobacco franchise fee, I suppose. I think it is very important in this day and age, as do the rest of the committee, to ensure that money spent on health promotion is kept at a level that will encourage healthy lifestyles in the community. I certainly hope that the Government will view that recommendation appropriately and positively. The other areas outside health which were of interest to me were the recommendations with regard to competitive tendering. The committee felt very strongly that it was important to have in place appropriate guidelines which would ensure that local products and local services, wherever possible, were used. I am sure that Mr Westende will speak more about that later.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the Government the recommendation with regard to the Hilmer report. I look forward to the Government's response to that later on. I think that report is one of the landmark reports that have been presented in this country over recent months. It has not had an awful lot of publicity, but I certainly hope that it is taken on board in the ACT, as it has been by some States and by the Federal Labor Government. I hope that the Follett Labor Government will take it on as positively as the Keating Labor Government has. There are lots of very important things in this report. Other members will bring them forward.
MR WESTENDE (8.57): Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to lend some weight to what Mrs Carnell has just said about the findings of the Select Committee on Estimates. We all have our pet hobbies. I am particularly interested in the Supply and Tender Agency. In its findings, the select committee established that various agencies have divergent views in relation to the competitive supply and tender process. The committee expressed the view that these various agencies should have the option to source goods and services from other than the building and maintenance section of the Department of Urban Services for fitout, refit and building maintenance. The operations of existing government agency services and those arrangements that are bound to particular suppliers within the government sector need review and attention.
The committee further established that the ACT Government, which is a signatory to the July 1991 procurement agreement, does not have an agreement for giving preference to goods made in Australia over goods imported into Australia - in other words, local versus imported. Why does the Government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .