Page 4219 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We had some other hiccups there. Mr Kaine has gone through a number of them; but one that springs to mind was the problem of annual reports. Apart from the fact that in many instances there was a lack of adequate annual reports and updated annual reports, there were some further instances where the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. One instance was where the Legal Aid Commission provided a copy of its annual report to the Attorney-General's Department and that department did not seem to know that that had occurred. Obviously, glitches do occur; but these are the things that should be ironed out. I would reiterate what Mr Kaine said and commend those additional comments to the Assembly because I certainly would be very disappointed to see that occur again, whatever process is adopted next year.
The report was presented in a fairly interesting way, in that you have very much a compromise. We could have had probably three separate reports. This is perhaps where the task of Mr Symington and his staff was particularly difficult. During the hearings, I was most impressed by his tolerance. You have a summary of recommendations in a report which is very much, I suppose, the lowest common denominator. It certainly does keep out the political rhetoric. But there was certainly a lot of that during the hearings and the deliberations. We went through many hours of deliberating on points which the Labor Party wanted to put in and points which we wanted to put in. One in particular, in relation to the Monash medical centre, took us about 90 minutes to decide and to come up with an agreed compromise position.
Madam Speaker, it may be that the format that this committee used in its budget performance review could be a lot better next time. Perhaps the most logical, preferred option would be - - -
Mr Lamont: Where is your dissenting report? You did not have one. You have been flogged by your leader.
MR STEFANIAK: This report is a compromise report, Mr Lamont. I note that we have a few of those in this Assembly; and I make no bones about that. If you want a few suggestions in terms of how to do it better next time, I will suggest two ways to you. This is, first and foremost, a logical extension of the Estimates Committee. Traditionally, all non-Executive members sit on that Estimates Committee. Perhaps the preferred option next time, which I would suggest to this Assembly as a logical extension of the Estimates Committee, would be for the Estimates Committee to look again at budget performance. That would probably be the best option available. Perhaps a secondary option is the one suggested by Mr Kaine. What this committee did came within the parameters of the Public Accounts Committee. That is certainly another option that could be looked at. I would commend those two suggestions to this Assembly.
There are a number of useful items that came out of the detailed questioning of the various agencies. It was detailed, and rightly so. Mrs Grassby complained about Mrs Carnell asking a number of questions of the Health Department and the Health Minister. I would remind Mrs Grassby that those questions were all quite proper; they were detailed. They got a number of answers; they exposed a number of instances where answers could not be provided and had to be provided later; and they were of great benefit to the committee. I would say to Mrs Grassby that I doubt very much that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .