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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 2811 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

public servants for answers until the point when the public servant flick-passes to the Minister or says that they are not prepared to answer because of the nature of the question. It is up to the committee to decide what they do with the matter if they have a refusal to answer on an important matter or whether they are prepared to accept an answer from the Minister concerned. I do not think it is right to expect that public servants not be pressed on matters. Of course we have to be able to press them on matters.

Let us not forget that the people putting together budget papers and annual reports are going to put the best gloss on their individual department's performance. They are certainly not going to report the negative events which have occurred throughout the year. They are only humans. Ministers are not going to be real happy with their departments if they put a litany of negative events in annual reports. Every department has them. They have them hidden away. It is up to the scrutiny process to discover them. Sometimes you have to be a bit brisk with the approach you take in pursuing these matters.

We did not uncover a lot in the time that we had to deal with these issues, but I think the matters that we did discover pointed to some general problems in the way that public servants and the Government deal with the performance of departments and their willingness to respond to the questions of committees. If this is the reaction we get on the Estimates Committee, which once a year scrutinises the budget, it is going to be just as difficult or even more difficult for those continuing committees that have to scrutinise public servants and call them to book in relation to other matters which occur throughout the year. For Mr Humphries and Ms Carnell to wail about the pressure being put on public servants to get responses that the committee is after is just a little bit precious. They ought to grow up a bit in relation to that.

Mr Stefaniak responded in relation to Copland College. Minister, yes, you did give evidence to the committee that you were doing things. What we are saying is that you are not doing enough, and what you have done has been unsuccessful, because enrolments are still falling. You had better have another look at yourself, because if you do not do something soon the school will close, and you know it. It will become non-viable unless you can get enrolments up. Yes, we asked the questions; yes, we were told what you were doing. We are telling you that it is not enough and that you have to revise it; otherwise, you are heading nowhere. It is your responsibility, not the department's, to initiate the process. As you say, this is a political environment. As one politician to another involved in a scrutiny process, I recommend that you pursue the course recommended by the scrutiny committee. Otherwise, Mr Rugendyke and I will be very unhappy with you.

Mr Stefaniak: You, of course, have absolutely no idea yourself, have you, Mr Berry?

MR BERRY: Mr Hird will not be unhappy with you, because he seems to think it is okay.

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