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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2412 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

It was not necessarily the case that three members held a diametrically opposing view. The other members may have held a slightly different view but did not feel as strongly about that as the others. However, those members who had a very significant point to make were accommodated within the body of the report.

Recommendation No 1 talks about when community groups ought to be engaged in the estimates process. This is, in fact, a recommendation not to the government but to the Assembly. The rest of the recommendations recommend to the Assembly that the government do X, Y and Z. Number one is a recommendation to the Assembly, based on the experience of this Estimates Committee, on who should appear, and in what order, so as to get the maximum benefit of the contribution from the community to the budget process. I think that is a very good recommendation, and one which ought to be taken up.

A very significant issue which the chairman pointed to in his speech was-it was Mrs Dunne who raised it, like a terrier with a rat, I might say, to her credit, because it is something I have been bellyaching about for some years-the relevance of performance indicators contained in the budget papers.

Mr Speaker, the number of random breath tests in the ACT is of no relevance to me. I could not care less if I never saw another number on it. What I would like to see is some measure of the effectiveness of those issues. I think Mrs Dunne made that point, toughly, with a number of departments, as they paraded before us.

Difficulty was also experienced by the committee because of the multitude of documents we were given. The thread between them was not always easy to find. If we wanted to find a piece of information, we had to look at the budget documents marks I, II and III. We had to look at the statements of intent and ownership agreements. We had to sift through all of those and make sure they were right. Overlaid upon that was the change to the departmental structure, which left some eyes spinning.

I join the chair and the rest of the committee in urging the government to make the budget papers as easy to read as possible. I suggest the process should be to develop the budget papers, go out into the street, find a rock and explain it to the rock. If the rock does not understand it, is too complicated-go back and do it again! That is the approach I like to take when doing these things.

Recommendation No 4 talks about a rigorous and independent cost benefit analysis for its significant projects. Whilst I agree with that recommendation, I have to say it is not with a great reputation that the recommendation was developed. I can recall doing almost a dental job on the government last year, trying to get a rigorous and independent cost benefit analysis for the prison project. That started with a figure of $32 million and worked its way gradually and excruciatingly upwards to $110 million. Even then, the Rengain report came in and, on their admission, it was not a complete cost benefit analysis. I find it very difficult, having spent three years belting the previous government for not doing it, to not support a recommendation that the next government does it.

I turn now to recommendation No 7, which talks about the recall process. We began with all the best intentions-to have the ministers come before us with the departments and then say, "Okay, we might want to pursue that question in a little more depth," and call them back and go down that track.

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