Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4052 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

the proper processes of this Assembly. It is a further example of the contempt, additional to the total shambles of budget papers, Mr Speaker, that we saw on this occasion. Over and over again the Assembly is asked to be tolerant because everything the Government is doing is new and because there are a whole lot of people who are not really public servants; they are contractors.

Mr Speaker, what is happening here is that the proper standards of accountability of this Assembly are slipping, and slipping badly. I think it is high time that the Government, and those who purport to serve the Government and the Assembly, pulled their socks up and at least had a good look at the work that they are putting into the public arena and made sure they do not embarrass themselves in this way yet again.

MS McRAE (10.23): I would like to add to these general comments. The Government response to the Estimate Committee's report demonstrates to me in black and white the superficial attitudes to many of the issues of major concern to the community and the Assembly. Let me begin with recommendation 1, as Mr Whitecross pointed out. The Government response says this:

Information on inputs (including accommodation) can be provided by agencies to the Estimates Committee as required.

May I point out here and now that this is not exactly a response that shows too much concern for the Estimates Committee recommendation. The Estimates Committee has required that this information be provided, whether it is an input or an output, a major cost to an agency, or a cost that is being reorganised, in the case of sale and lease-back, or perhaps a non-existent cost in the case of a government-owned building, or an accelerating one if agencies are inappropriately accommodated in rental accommodation. The Estimates Committee has required that this information be provided. It has not said that agencies can provide it if requested. It was a straightforward recommendation from a six-person, all-Assembly, unanimous Estimates Committee, and I do find this very disappointing.

The response to recommendation 3 is also of concern. The committee is asking for cross-referencing in budget papers and in asking for that is well aware of the difficulties that this could present to the Government as all committee members had ploughed through all this year's budget papers and the annual reports and all the agreements. They did all this on their own without cross-referencing. Every member of the Estimates Committee was well aware of what they were asking. I believe that the Government could have taken this request seriously and offered to prepare such a guide within, say, a fortnight of the budget being presented. We had this year a full week before the Estimates Committee hearings. I find it very disappointing that the Government did not take this request seriously. It pointed out the difficulties, as if we could not figure that out ourselves, and then glibly put it aside.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .