Page 2064 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As Mr Smyth pointed out, it was a packed house that day. I think we could barely fit into the room with the number of consultants, ministers, public servants and also a number of other members, apart from members of the select committee. That is an important area that does need further scrutiny. Further work needs to be done and there are a number of recommendations. As I said, there are 20 recommendations that go to this particular part of the budget.
That was not the only time that we had a number of members coming in to participate in the Select Committee on Estimates. Of course, they are there as visitors. It is a good thing to be able to have other members come down to ask questions on their portfolio areas. But it really struck me that this, again, is a good argument for not going down the Select Committee on Estimates path. The Greens, as may be recalled, had put forward a suggestion to change the way that we did estimates and felt that there was very good sense in, rather than having one Select Committee on Estimates, actually allowing the standing committees to conduct that estimates process. They are the ones that are following through, not just the appropriation but the yearly cycle through the annual reports, and they are able to follow through particular issues that they may be pursuing. I still think that is the best way to go.
I note that one of the objections from the government was about the impact on their backbench, with two members. They now have, of course, three members on their backbench. I hope that we are able to reopen discussions around whether this could be another way to approach estimates. I also hope to be able to engage in that discussion with the Canberra Liberals.
I think there is some sense in being able to follow through, as I said. It is not going to add to the number of days; it does not add to the number of hearings or whatever. This idea that it is extra, I believe, is not the case. It certainly is not the case that it would have extended the number of sessions. I believe that all of those MLAs showed that they were interested in their portfolio areas and wanted to be part of estimates. Therefore, why not have a system that does engage all members, through the standing committees, in estimates processes? Obviously, we are all keen to be part of the estimates process.
As Mr Smyth said, there were a couple of other changes in the report. One was around where a recommendation was put up and it was lost. This year, rather than having it in additional comments or in a dissenting report, it was put down as a footnote. On page 44 of the estimates committee report there is an example around the Infrastructure Canberra Bill. I thought it was a little cheeky of Mr Smyth to want us to support a particular piece of legislation, but I point that out as an example of how this report was done. But nice try, Mr Smyth, at that time.
There were a number of important issues. Mr Smyth has highlighted some of them but I will go to others. One that was raised was about our concern around Calvary Health Care and the staff entitlements issue. We learned that there is a dispute between the ACT government and Calvary around those staff entitlements. This is an important issue. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. Therefore, recommendations 98 and 99 go to the heart of this. The crux of this is to get a negotiation, to get a solution, so that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video