Page 2230 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
time—and this added some complexity to the time and the opportunity members had to ask questions.
To that end, I draw members’ attention to recommendations 3 and 4, which are focused on improving the process of estimates and, in particular, trying to limit opening statements by ministers so that they are more succinct and also limiting the length of answers various directorate officials give. Often it is a case that one minor question can take in excess of 20 minutes for one answer, and the committee feels improvements can certainly be made in that space. As the outgoing chair I have written to the Speaker, in her capacity as the chair of admin and procedures, requesting a broader review of the way questions on notice are handled, not just in the estimates period but across the committee system.
I will speak very briefly on a number of key recommendations. Recommendation 28 is an example of trying to improve transparency. Often line items are combined into one output class and it is very difficult for the estimates committee and members and the general public more broadly to decipher the priorities in that output class. The committee recommends that Transport Canberra and City Services maintain separate budget line items for sports grounds facilities and management and maintenance so that things like maintenance, lighting and other user charges, irrigation, capital upgrades and capital expenditure are broken down into separate line items. It adds an additional layer of transparency and accountability. Likewise, recommendation 38 asks the government, when preparing the budget, to identify the source of data used for the accountability indicators so that they have some meaning and stature.
The committee made a number of recommendations that focus on cost of living and housing affordability, specifically recommendation 42. In the last couple of weeks my office has certainly had a good deal of correspondence with regard to the utility concessions and the changes that have been made there. In recommendation 42 the committee recommends that the government ensure that eligible residents with low electricity bills still receive the full concession by being given the option to choose the utility to which the concession applies, for example. That issue came about because some residents have indicated that they have solar panels on their roof, have a very modest electricity bill—considerably lower than the concession—and have the desire to apply that where required.
Recommendation 43 focuses on housing affordability. The surprise changes to the lease variation charge that came in as part of the budget have caused a great deal of concern, not just amongst the construction industry but also in areas of the community where housing affordability is a key issue. The increase of the lease variation charge by over 400 per cent without industry consultation is certainly not a step in the right direction in trying to address housing affordability.
Recommendations 47, 49 and 50 seek to unpick the ambiguous relationship between government and the government-owned entity of Icon Water and, through it, the ownership of and stake in ActewAGL. There need to be further rulings on the role of this Assembly in scrutinising those entities and, more broadly, where our responsibility for oversight of that commercial relationship exists. I am sure Mr Coe will go into some further detail on that, if not today then tomorrow, in his motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video