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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4743 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

In reviewing the estimates process, I would urge the next Assembly to seriously address the issue of balancing the appropriate use of agencies' resources in providing services to the ACT community with satisfying the occasionally onerous and extraordinarily detailed information requirements of the Estimates Committee process. Members should be aware that information provided in response to questions on notice comes at a cost and, where significant, such costs draw resources away from service delivery to the Canberra community.

I would like to congratulate the committee for its commitment and effort in examining the 1996-97 annual and financial reports. Mr Speaker, I commend to the Assembly the Government's response to the Estimates Committee report on the annual and financial reports for the financial year 1996-97.

MS McRAE (3.37): It is very pleasing to hear the Government actually respond. Of course, the job will be for the Assembly to make sure that this response is put into some thorough action by whichever government it is - and I will bring this to the attention of my Treasurer next year. The detail is a bit disappointing when you have a look through it. Some of the things might just need a little more thought. In particular, what comes up every time - and I would like to make a point of it - is the nature of responses that governments give to the questions that are put by the Estimates Committee and the ongoing tussle that one has there. I note that some mention is made of this in the Government's response.

I think, perhaps, I had better take time to put on record one approach that both the committee and the Government might take to this next year. It occurred to me very late in the proceedings that that is perhaps what I should have been doing as chair. Maybe I will recommend this to the next chair. What we need at the end of each day of the Estimates Committee hearings, I think, is a quick round table to see whether we all have the same record of which questions were asked, what was the nature of the questions and what was the expectation of the timeframe for the answer. I realise that this sounds quite trite; but it is something that we have overlooked in the past and then we have come to a reinterpretation all round of just what was supposed to be answered, by when, and what was the intent of the question.

Several times during Estimates Committee hearings, I would stop and say, "Have you got that question? We want you to take it on notice and get an answer back in three days". But, of course, I was not able to do that all the way through. The same applies to questions that are put on notice before the Estimates Committee actually begins. The Government has pointed out several times that the depth and variety of the questions that are asked often mean that the responses require enormous amounts of resources and time.

So, perhaps, next year, the committee that reviews the Estimates Committee should have a bit of a look at this and determine whether the questions are too detailed or require extra time to be responded to. I think that would mean that both sides could work more openly on what their objectives really are, instead of all of us second-guessing. Many a time, for members, the perception is that the Government is deliberately avoiding answering things and, many a time, for the Government, the perception is that the questions are just being put down to be a nuisance rather than to be any helpful venture.

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