Page 4224 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
undesirable for budget documentation to pre-empt these processes, but such a qualification does not apply in relation to reporting on outcomes. The committee's report acknowledges that savings were made. It is clear that the issue of the renegotiation of VMO contracts was overtaken by the lengthy arbitration process. I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that it is not always possible to attribute a precise dollar value to individual measures. Other specific measures interact, and some measures avoid cost increases that otherwise would have occurred. This is particularly the case in highly complex programs, such as health, which are subject to rapidly changing technology and practices. Nevertheless, the Government agrees with the spirit and the substance of the committee's recommendations.
I would now like to turn to some of the criticisms of the committee's report, particularly those made by the Leader of the Opposition. In this context, Madam Speaker, I find it absolutely remarkable that one of the senior members of the committee was the Opposition's Treasury spokesperson. The Leader of the Opposition has appeared to ignore this simple and self-evident fact, and it is an appalling slur on the members of her own party. The Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that any report which is not divisive and negative and which does not single out individuals for criticism is not a worthwhile report. I totally reject such a view. The committee has rightly observed that the Estimates Committee had reported in considerable detail to the Assembly barely three months earlier. It appears that only the Leader of the Opposition holds the view that it would be useful to go over the same ground in equal detail again.
In responding to the earlier report, Madam Speaker, it was with some dismay that I noted the extent to which highly partisan issues had been introduced, and I spoke on that issue at the time. I am not critical of that in itself. What was difficult to come to terms with was the rather threadbare nature of those issues. To criticise this committee's report now on the grounds that it addresses issues of substance, including the need to review the existing estimates and budget committee process, but does not seek the sensational headline or the throwaway line, is a hollow criticism indeed.
The Government believes that issues must be addressed on their substance, not on how strongly or stridently - more to the point - they might be reported. Accordingly, Madam Speaker, the Government wishes to make it clear that we appreciate the time and the effort invested by members of the committee in a new and uncertain process. The task was addressed in a responsible manner. The Government's response is also made in that spirit. Madam Speaker, I would again like to congratulate members of the Select Committee on Budget Performance and Outcomes, including the chair, for having done, in my view, a good job and a very responsible job.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.26): Madam Speaker, I do not know whether it makes Ms Szuty uncomfortable that this report has received such fulsome praise from the Government. It seems to me that the reason for having an estimates-like process is to identify faults and flaws in government administration, to find things that are wrong and to identify areas where mistakes have been made. I assume that even the Chief Minister, with her so-called superb front bench, would admit that there are mistakes made by this Government, as there are by every other government. In those circumstances, one would assume that, in most circumstances, the process of analysing mistakes, identifying them, pointing to them and saying, "This should be changed" would be a relatively painful process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .