Page 4210 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I take pleasure in presenting the report of the Select Committee on Budget Performance and Outcomes for 1993-94. Members will remember that the select committee was established on 15 September, just over two months ago, and has reported to you, Madam Speaker, as expected, on time, on 25 November, last Friday. The committee was established in light of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates for 1994-95, which recommended that a further scrutiny process occur, to take account of the earlier presentation of the Government's budget where less information about government performance and management was available at that time.
Most agency annual reports were tabled in the Legislative Assembly by 20 September. The committee held 35 hours of public hearings, from 20 October until 26 October, in which all Ministers and relevant officers were asked questions by both committee members and, by leave, other members of this Assembly. The committee was unable to hold hearings before 20 October, due to other committee commitments and Assembly sittings. The time set aside for hearings coincided with the time for hearings set aside by the Select Committee on Estimates, which held 42 hours of public hearings, also hearing from ACT Electricity and Water and ACTTAB. Almost all non-Executive members of the Assembly took the opportunity to participate in the hearings this time, the only exceptions being Ms Ellis and Mr Stevenson. I pointed out at the time of the debate on the motion to establish the Budget Performance and Outcomes Committee that this would indeed be the case; members of the Assembly who were not members of the committee would still be able to question Ministers and witnesses about the Government's performance. This did occur.
The difference between this committee and the Estimates Committee was that five members of the committee compiled a report, enabling each issue presented to be fully discussed, debated and considered before being accepted for inclusion in the report. Constructive criticism of the ACT Government's performance was sought, and in the report the committee has been critical of Government performance where it has been seen to be necessary to be so. Material provided by members which was not directly and fully sourced to the transcripts, written answers provided to questions on notice, annual reports or other relevant documentation was not included. I believe that the committee was quite ruthless as to information which we did not include in the report because it could not be fully and accurately sourced.
The committee has made nine recommendations, as opposed to the 37 recommendations made by the Select Committee on Estimates for 1994-95. I believe that there are several reasons which explain the reduction in the number of recommendations made. One reason is that the committee has had barely four weeks to complete its report, following the conclusion of the public hearings, and even less time when answers to questions on notice are taken into consideration. Also, for one of those weeks, the Assembly was sitting. Another major reason, I believe, for the difference is that almost 12 months elapsed between the reports of the Estimates Committee for 1993-94 and the Estimates Committee for 1994-95, and only three months has elapsed between the report of the Estimates Committee of this year and the report of this committee. The Estimates Committee had more recent information and material to consider than did the Budget Performance and Outcomes Committee. As well, the Estimates Committee this year fully considered the Government's capital works program for the first time and a number of the Estimates Committee's recommendations related to capital works.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .