Page 4012 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 23 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell: Have you read it?
MR LAMONT: Yes, I have - probably unlike you, Mrs Carnell. That report, sponsored by the Federal Government, came out with a range of recommendations. Mr Hilmer is quite at liberty to make the recommendations that he makes, but the philosophy and policies which govern the workings of this Government are such that most, if not all, of the recommendations need some further scrutiny before agreement could be reached on them. That was the point that I raised in the Estimates Committee and it is the point that I raise now. I simply do not support the recommendation in paragraph 3.48. I also said that at the time.
I indicated, after great debate within the Estimates Committee on the two matters that I have risen to speak about tonight, that I did have some concern about them. I am being consistent in relation to those two questions. What I said then, Madam Speaker, is also appropriate now. By and large, the Estimates Committee process provides a very useful mechanism for the Assembly to scrutinise the operations of the administration and the efficiency of the administration. Like Ms Szuty, I believe that it is probably time for us to move on in the evolution of the Estimates Committee. I believe that 90 hours of Estimates Committee hearings is possibly too long in the current format, and that there are better strategies for getting information than that we adopted this year.
One possibility I favour is identifying the standing committees of the Assembly - and there are five of them - as estimates committees with portfolio responsibility. There are a range of other possibilities. One factor that militates against that possibility is that there are a number of Assembly members on more than one committee. That would have to be looked at. But it would also mean that the amount of time that everybody had to spend waiting to get to some particular area would be reduced.
Madam Speaker, with the exception of the two recommendations I have outlined, I believe that this is a fine report. I congratulate Ms Szuty on her stewardship. Unlike most of the Liberals opposite, at least this year I was there for most meetings.
MS ELLIS (9.41): I want to touch briefly on the enormous amount of work done by everyone concerned in the Estimates Committee process - not only the 11 committee members but also the Ministers, their staff and the officials who spent an enormous number of hours in front of the committee and in providing additional information in response to almost endless requests by the committee. I am not in any way reflecting on the requests for additional information, but I think that in the future some members of the committee need to consider seriously to what degree they require the sort of information that they request. In the deliberations of the committee towards the end of the process, I do not recall a great deal of that written information actually being referred to. By the same token, the committee has every right to request information, but I think the load that that imposed on people needs to be recognised. I also endorse Mr Kaine's comments in relation to the contribution by Ministers, staff and officials. I also found it very useful compared to the only previous experience I have had, last year's process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .