Page 4217 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My argument on this issue of the outcomes was that this was an appropriate task for the Public Accounts Committee, which is established specifically to review the accounts of the Government. I would have thought it would, once the Estimates Committee process no longer operated, fall to the Public Accounts Committee. This year, the Assembly chose to take another tack. Before this occurs again next year, we need to review that and decide whether this year's model was an appropriate way to go.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is much comment that I could go on to make about the detailed agencies, along the lines of what I have made already, and that is to refute any assertion that this is a bland document that is meaningless. We looked at every issue that was brought before us, and we expressed our opinion as forcefully as we were able to do. That was what the committee was established to do. Other members are quite entitled now to raise in detail any issue on the major part of this report that relates to agency detail, and to pursue those matters further, based on what is in the report and what is in the transcript, if they choose to do so; it is open for debate. I do not share the concern that the committee report is not a good one. We did the best that we could under the circumstances. The report achieves its objective. That is not to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we believed - I do not think that any of the members of the committee believed - that at the end of the day the Government had been made fully accountable for the money that it spent. We were all dissatisfied with the outcome, but we did the best that we could with the information that was available to us. I do not think that any committee can be asked to do more than that.
MRS GRASSBY (4.56): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank every other member of the committee for working so hard to produce this report in time for it to be tabled today. This has been the best effort to date by an Assembly committee to bring forward a constructive report on the Government's budget performance. I congratulate all members of the committee for having such high integrity in their conduct so close to an election - especially the chairperson, Helen Szuty, who, at all times, acted impartially in the committee process.
It is disappointing that the Opposition Leader, who had at her absolute discretion whether to be on the committee, and chose not to do so, chooses to sit back and fling mud from the sidelines. Moreover, she occupied a considerable amount of the committee's time in asking questions that had no relation to the budget outcome deliberations. In particular, she asked numerous unprepared questions on health, which were either hypothetical or simply just a fishing expedition. Nevertheless, the committee's report is a better document for this. There has been considerable comment that this report was not political enough and not critical of the Government. My answer to those comments is: So what? Does a document being a critical political document make it a good one for public administration? I really do not think so.
What the Opposition Leader is really annoyed about is the fact that the Health Department has come in under its original budget estimate. This is the first time since self-government that ACT Health has spent less than what has been appropriated - a herculean performance, Mr Minister. The important news for ACT taxpayers is that the Health Department has actually spent less money. This has improved the bottom line figure for the ACT budget. This is a massive turnaround compared to the $17m blow-out
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .