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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (30 April) . . Page.. 274 ..

serve on both executive committees and Assembly committees. I suggest that the relationship that will develop will be one of duplication rather than symbiosis. Neither avenue bodes well for the continued active operation of the Assembly committee system.

Another option is that Members serve concurrently on both executive and Assembly committees. The resources available to Assembly committees are already very limited - particularly in their access to the time of the 13 available Assembly Members (if you include the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition). In additional comments and again in a dissenting report presented to the Assembly in reports by the Standing Committee on Social Policy at the end of 1997, Mrs Littlewood MLA expressed dissatifaction with the time frames of the Committee's inquiries.

Given the timeframe of this report the Committee has not been able to have an in depth look into some areas.9

To disperse the already limited time that Members have available for committee work across a wider range of committees can only further limit the time that Assembly committees have to consider any inquiry in any depth. A corollary is that the nature of the inquiries undertaken by Assembly committees may need to be limited to those that can be completed in the short to medium term and that any longer term inquiries (which tend to be those concerned with the development of policy issues) could not be undertaken.

The question must also be addressed as to the outcome should an executive committee choose to meet (or a chair was requested to undertake executive duties, say at an important conference or ministerial meeting) whilst the Assembly or an Assembly committee with common membership was meeting. Which body would have the pre-eminent claim to the services of the Member(s).

Another related issue is - would the chairs of executive committees, (by having an executive role) be called before relevant Assembly committees for questioning on the relevant expenditure or administration of the area under scrutiny.

Access to the physical and human resources of the Assembly is also an issue that would need to be addressed. The resources include both accommodation (meeting rooms etc) and technical resources (eg access to the IT infrastructure). It is naive to assume that there will never be a situation where the demands of the executive committees for access to meeting facilities will be in direct conflict with those of Assembly committees. In the past when Executive boards of inquiry have utilised Assembly resources competing demands have resulted in some awkwardness emerging and disappointed clients.

The advent of executive committees could see a major encroachment on the operation of Assembly committees with the clear possibility of Assembly committees being marginalised and left with a vestigial role with their places being taken by hybrid bodies with a governing and scrutiny role, not really answerable to anyone yet answerable to everyone. The core question which then emerges is - why cannot these policy advisory roles be undertaken by Assembly committees? The proposed executive committee on government reform is quite clearly encroaching on a matter that it would be expected that the Assembly may refer to one of its own committees or establish a committee to examine and report on. Why cannot an Assembly committee that is clearly representative of the Canberra community undertake this role and in due course report to the Assembly? The Executive's views on the matter can be fed into the inquiry. The Executive's attitude to the report can be tested when it responds in the Assembly to any recommendations the committee may make.

There is no reason why an adequately resourced Assembly committee cannot examine, report on and monitor these matters. If necessary resources are available, specialist advisers can be appointed pursuant to standing order 238.

__________________________

9 Standing Committee on Social Policy, Report No. 7, Report on the inquiry into Services for Children at Risk in the ACT, December 1997, p 151

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