Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2114 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
by the community. I am glad that we were able to have that opportunity to hear from different community representatives on the impact that the budget would have on them as people resident in the city. Mr Speaker, I would hope that future estimates committees will take advantage of that provision in examining future budgets.
I would like to outline just briefly a number of the key recommendations in the Estimates Committee report as part of this process we are undertaking today. The first, Mr Speaker, is a very relevant one because it goes to the heart of the role of the estimates process. Mr Speaker, during the hearings the committee was challenged on its ability to raise questions about the Bruce Stadium redevelopment. We had those comments reasserted by the Chief Minister and other members of the Government in the debate on Wednesday on the want of confidence; indeed, we had them as late as this morning.
Mr Speaker, the Government has consistently argued that they believe that it is not within the scope of the Estimates Committee to examine issues relating to Bruce Stadium. The argument goes something along these lines: There is no line item. There is no money in the budget specifically allocated to Bruce Stadium. Therefore, you cannot ask questions about it. Mr Speaker, I think it is important to put on the record that the committee does not agree with this view. The reason for that, Mr Speaker, was that the committee took the view that it was entirely within the realm of the committee to examine any issue relating to the public administration of the city where public funds were being expended to effect the purpose, such as the administration of the Bruce project.
Mr Speaker, the committee sought some advice from the Clerk of this place in relation to the formal authority that the committee had to examine this issue. The Clerk advised on a couple of issues. First of all, he advised the committee that formal authority over the proceedings of standing and select committees and the powers and authorities of those committees lies with the chair of each of the committees, rather than the Speaker of the Assembly. In most respects, the chairperson of a select committee has the powers of the Speaker of the Assembly in relation to the proceedings of that committee. So, it was entirely within my responsibility as chair of the committee to make a ruling as to what was in order and what was not in order in relation to questions asked by the committee. That is the first point.
The second point, Mr Speaker, relates to the ability of the committee itself to examine the Bruce Stadium issue and the Clerk went on to observe in his advice to me as chair that the fundamental role of the Assembly is to seek information and, if seen to be necessary, to bring governments to account and to bring issues of concern into public view. I would like to quote from this advice because I think it very important. He advised that the committee:
... is not precluded from questioning the adequacy of the expenditure and revenue proposals referred and any liabilities to which the Territory may be exposed should it see fit. This could include the adequacy of the appropriation sought for the relevant department and the potential liability to the Territory arising out of the Stadium redevelopment. It is also my understanding that Territory employees have an administrative role and certain responsibilities in relation to the redevelopment proposals and this must be a relevant issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .