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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 924 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

The Minister for Education was not given the opportunity to come back to this committee. He should have been given the opportunity to defend himself or dissect that part of the evidence which was questionable. I think that it is only reasonable for the Minister whose budget we were looking at to analyse the evidence. After all, the budget is the responsibility of the Minister and he must be given the opportunity to answer the criticism which was levelled against him or the Government. The report contains a number of recommendations which are based on the evidence provided by the witnesses to the inquiry. It cannot be disputed that the Minister would have contradicted some of this evidence, but the final report automatically accepts the evidence given by other witnesses as being sound.

It must also be disputed whether the terms of the resolution to send the matter to an inquiry have been adequately addressed and whether the terms of reference were dealt with in the way a committee is supposed to deal with them. The report as presented made little or no effort to make recommendations which would result in the maintenance or improvement of the operation resulting from this appropriation unit, as required by this place. The majority of the committee appears to have bypassed completely the opportunity to have input to the budget process at the draft stage. I had some reservations in respect of this process. However, I think that it is very clear from all the committees on which I served that there is some justification for this process. The mover of the original motion, Mr Osborne, has indicated that at the early stage he was not absolutely convinced that this process would work, but now he is. I am sure that Mr Osborne will speak for himself when he brings in his own report.

I have noted that the report makes little or no reference to revenue estimates or to the capital works program, despite their being specifically mentioned in the terms of reference. The committee has noted that it had to work within a tight timeframe to prepare its report, but that cannot be used as an excuse for not addressing the issues resolved by this place. In that regard the work of a large number of public servants during the Christmas break to prepare this information should not be overlooked. Alternatively, it could be argued that the committee spent too much time on issues outside its reference and that was the major reason that it could not fully meet its responsibilities.

To summarise, Mr Acting Speaker, it is argued that the majority of the committee has reached its findings on a number of issues on the basis of untested or incomplete information, that the Minister has not been given adequate opportunity to respond to issues raised in the course of the inquiry and that the report has not responded adequately to the provisions of the resolution establishing the inquiry. As well as the general issues mentioned, I have also addressed a number of specific elements in my dissenting report. I am sure that they will be addressed more fully by my colleagues in due course; in particular, the Minister. The committee worked hard and the witnesses expressed their heartfelt views. They are entitled to do that, as I am. However, it is my recommendation that the report presented by the majority of the committee is unsound and that it not be accepted.

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