Page 2231 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Recommendation 59 focuses on benchmarking around health and that future budget papers include the national efficient price for the provision of health services to give a genuine benchmark on how we compare with other jurisdictions and other measures on the cost of providing health services.
Recommendation 98 is key, in my view, as a member of not just the committee but the Assembly, as it recommends that the government consult with relevant recreational groups such as mountain bike riders, anglers and other environmental groups and stakeholders to seek a resolution of issues arising with regard to the management of and access to reserves. I note that the cost-saving measure the government had in the budget relating to shutting the gate at Googong Dam would see many recreational users severely disadvantaged simply because the government thought it was too much of an effort to send a ranger around there to carry out the work they are supposed to do in managing our parks and nature reserves.
Recommendation 112 is very important to me—student access to mental health services. I had a call on Friday about a student in a non-government school reliant on government support services in the mental health space and the wait times that are simply too long. All too often we hear of students in schools, regardless of which sector, that are struggling to get adequate and suitable access to mental health services, so recommendation 112 touches on that area.
Some concerns were raised about the changing of the city centre marketing improvements levy and the spending of that coming in house, into government. Recommendations 107 and 108 focus on making sure there is accountability in the government’s performance in spending the levy raised from property owners in the CBD area.
Before I wind up, I will raise an issue that certainly is a concern to me, as the chair of the committee this year, but to the opposition more broadly—that is, the attitude that seems to have crept in on the part of executive members of the government that the estimates process is an inconvenience and that subjecting themselves to scrutiny is a hindrance to their day-to-day role. That was evident in a number of aspects: first and foremost were the ministerial absences during the estimates period. The sitting schedule is made available at the beginning of the year and, as has always been the case in this Assembly, the last two weeks in June are the estimates period. To have four ministers absent for all of or a great chunk of the estimates period adds great difficulty to scheduling hearings. The late notice of some of those absences required a rewrite of the schedule in about three instances. Of particular note is Mr Rattenbury’s absence for the entire hearing period for what I understand was a period of personal leave and not work-related travel.
The other concern related to Minister Fitzharris, in her capacity as the health minister. Again, this underlined the concern of the opposition that the estimates process is seen as a hindrance rather than part of good governance. The committee was very accommodating with Ms Fitzharris’s appearance before the estimates committee in her capacity as the health minister. She was quite unwell that day and the committee recognised that and agreed to quite a contracted hearing for her.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video