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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2270 ..

Firstly, I wish to thank a few people, which I think it is appropriate to do on this occasion. The report is lengthy. It is a report that was compiled in a short period after a lot of work. Also, it is now 11.15 am on the day that the committee was meant to bring it in. I commend my colleagues on the committee and, especially, the committee staff for bringing this report to the Assembly under considerable difficulties.

I thank my colleagues—Karin MacDonald, the Deputy Chair; Ros Dundas; Vicki Dunne; and John Hargreaves. I particularly thank Siobhan Leyne and the hardworking people in the committee office and the various secretaries who assisted us. Three or more of those people were sick for lengthy periods over the last couple of weeks and it is great credit to them especially that this report was still brought down in a timely fashion. I pay particular tribute to their dedication, despite very great difficulties as a result of people being laid ill.

Mr Speaker, there are 57 recommendations in this report. It is somewhat sad to say that some of the recommendations you would have seen before. It is pleasing to say on a similar note that there has been some improvement in the more technical aspects of this report. The committee, as it has done in the past, advertised in both the Canberra Times and the Chronicle. It also wrote to people who had an interest in turning up at the hearings during April and May. The committee heard from members of the public, receiving eight submissions and hearing from a number of individuals at its meeting on 17 May.

The committee had some problems with timetabling. I note that in November of last year the secretariat arranged with the ministers’ offices to ensure that time would be set aside for the estimates process and a blocked-out period was put in the calendar for the following year, which is something that needs to continue. Despite that and despite the fact that we had set aside days for recall, there were considerable problems, especially in relation to the Chief Minister, in terms of attendance at the committee. Some of those blocked-out days in the Chief Minister’s diary actually had appointments in them.

I would certainly urge all ministers in future to ensure that those days are free. That just makes it so much easier in terms of getting people to attend. Recommendation 1 is that all ministers ensure that they are available for the full scheduled estimates period, including the recall days. Conversely, the committee does thank two ministers, Mr Wood and Mr Corbell, for making themselves available at short notice, which is something that I think all ministers should do.

I turn to a number of general issues in relation to this process. We noticed a number of basic typographical errors in the budget papers. Hence, recommendation 3 is that treasury ensure that the budget papers are edited. That is pretty basic and just should happen.

The committee made some recommendations in relation to the time it takes to handle these matters. For example, education should be allocated a full day. That is something that has occurred in the past. We note that from time to time during estimates periods there will be issues of very great public importance and interest—for example, the Vardon report came down. We make comments in relation to that later.

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