Page 4212 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, it would take considerable time to do so, and I will leave it to my fellow committee members to make such comments, should they choose to do so. At this stage I would simply like to refer the Government to the body of the report to consider fully all of the issues raised.
Before I comment on the future processes, I would like to respond to Mrs Carnell's publicly stated concerns about the quality of this report. I believe that Mr Berry quoted Mrs Carnell earlier, in question time. In Saturday's Canberra Times, when referring to the report, she said that it was "a joke"; that it "contained few, if any, worthwhile recommendations"; and that it was "a waste of time and public money". Madam Speaker, the committee's composition is the same as that of all other committees of this Assembly, with appropriate representation from Government, Opposition and Independent members. It would have been possible for the two Liberal members - Mr Kaine and Mr Stefaniak - and me to present a report extremely critical of the Government, full of political rhetoric and invective; no doubt, accompanied by two minority reports from the two Government members - Mr Berry and Mrs Grassby. The Government might have taken little or no notice of such a report. We have chosen not to do that but to present a report which we believe the Government will take full cognisance of. Mrs Carnell could have been a member of this committee if she had taken a keen enough interest in the committee's work and if she had wanted to contribute to the committee's report. She has chosen not to do so, relying on her two Liberal colleagues Mr Kaine and Mr Stefaniak, in whom she appears to have little or no faith at all, to do the work - and this from a Leader of the Opposition who believes in a collegiate system of government, a more town council style of government in the ACT. What hypocrisy!
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that we have some way to go to find an appropriate process for the review of government performance and expenditure as the result of the earlier budget cycle. This is acknowledged in recommendation 4 of the committee's report. Indeed, the committee asks this Assembly to review the existing Estimates Committee and Budget Performance Committee arrangements, with a view to establishing a time- and cost-effective means of examining the annual appropriations and agency budget performance and outcomes. My own preference is as follows: The new Assembly should discuss and decide whether this process should continue to be separate from the Public Accounts Committee's activities or whether the Public Accounts Committee should take on the work of both the Estimates Committee and the Budget Performance and Outcomes Committee; the committee should be a five-member committee and, if it is a different committee from the Public Accounts Committee, the membership should be the same for both the Estimates Committee and the Budget Performance and Outcomes Committee; the remaining non-Executive members of the Assembly should be invited to question Ministers and witnesses during public hearings; at the time that the sitting patterns for the new Assembly are decided, sufficient consideration should be given to the role of the committees examining the Government's budget and performance; the 1995-96 draft capital works program should be referred to the new Assembly's Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, as recommended by the 1994-95 Estimates Committee; the Government and agencies should review the extent of information made available to the 1994-95 Estimates Committee and the Budget Performance and Outcomes Committee for 1993-94, with a view to improving the provision of information in the future; and the newly established committee should consider carefully the approach taken to both tasks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .