Page 4220 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell is always on a fishing expedition. She has a particular expertise in the health area, which is certainly greater than the Health Minister's. That is one area. Another important point is that the committee got some useful information about what happens with the bulbs after Floriade. My colleague Mr Moore, as chair of another committee, is going to make some suggestions in relation to what should happen in future. It is an issue which another committee of this Assembly has looked at. That was certainly useful. That was interesting information as to what was occurring this time. In our own specific areas, further useful information was ascertained from the questioning of departmental officials.
Madam Speaker, I hope - and I cannot see any reason why not, given the nature of the support for the report - that the Government will act on the recommendations. Their members agreed to it. Ms Szuty agreed to it. The committee report is a compromise. It could have been a lot more political. We could have had 20 pages of dissent. There could have been 20 pages of Labor's dissent. There was not. We have nine recommendations that have been described as being bland. If that is the case, that is all the more reason for this Government to act on them. The Government should hearken to the very technical criticisms that Mr Kaine made and look at these recommendations. There is absolutely no justification for the Government not to adopt these recommendations. I would commend to the Assembly that the next committee that engages in this activity should be the Estimates Committee or, failing that, the Public Accounts Committee.
MR BERRY (Manager of Government Business) (5.08): This committee process was one which was really under the whip. We had to move it along to get the process resolved in order that we could develop this excellent report for the Assembly's due consideration. It is a great shame that Mrs Carnell is not in the chamber now, because I would like to point out a few things to her. You do not need a lot of invective in a report to make it meaningful. You do not need sneering remarks in a report to make it meaningful. You do not need to embarrass people to make a report meaningful. All you need to put in a report is the relevant information to ensure that accountability is the focus. There is no question that accountability is the focus. Mr Kaine did this report justice when he talked about the meaning of many of the statements and recommendations which are made in the report. It seems that Mrs Carnell will never be happy and will throw a tantrum, like she did on Saturday, if she cannot have a report that is full of the personal and sneering contempt that has become so much a hallmark of the way she conducts herself in these processes. I am pleased that none of that is in there.
I would like to compare this to what happened in the Estimates Committee. This is a refreshing change. At least departmental officers will have a document that is not meant to bludgeon them into submission. We are dealing with responsible officers who want to be accountable, who want to do their job well and who recognise the importance of self-government, the politicians in this place, the decisions that we make, the laws that we make, and of course the accountability process that we go through. There was close interrogation of many of those officers by committee members.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .