Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1894 ..
MS MacDONALD
(continuing):talking about why that report was so flawed. I have to say with regard to the Public Accounts Committee report that I was surprised to hear last week that the ABC actually knew what was in it before the committee had deliberated on it.
This morning, I heard yet again on ABC Radio that the media had information about the report on the budget estimates. Mr Speaker, this really is of major concern. I for one know that I have not leaked anything. I know that my office has not leaked anything. I know that nobody from the government side has leaked anything because, as was stated this morning by somebody else with regard to the Estimates Committee, it would not be in the Labor Party's interest to do so.
Apart from anything else, I have a higher standard than that. The issue was raised this morning and I do not appreciate that there is possibly a reflection on me because I am on both those committees and that is where the leaks have come from, Mr Speaker. I think it is unfortunate. What's more, it is a flagrant abuse of the committee system and I do hope that it will desist in future.
MR STEFANIAK
(12.20): Mr Speaker, a number of things jump out in relation to this estimates process. I do start by commending the five committee members and the staff, especially Derek Abbott, for a very comprehensive effort. Indeed, if members feel the Estimates Committee report, they will find that it is literally hot off the press, as a result of some very lengthy deliberations last night and into this morning, I understand. It can be fairly surmised that this process was a bit of a guesstimate in relation to some of the responses that the government gave in terms of exactly how they came up with the figures they did. I think that that, in itself, is of concern.There are some very good recommendations in this report by the committee. I particularly like recommendation 2.10, in relation to putting the hearing dates in the schedule of sitting days for the year. The estimates committee process is one of the most important processes of this Assembly and I think that there is eminent sense in what the committee recommends there. I would certainly hope that that will be taken up.
There are a number of other things, just going through it, which jump out. I heard Mrs Cross express concern in relation to an increase in the number of senior officers. It is often the case when you get a Labor government that there is suddenly an increase in the number of senior executive officers. They feel that they must have a commissioner for this or an assistant secretary or CEO for some particular area.
One wonders whether that is necessary. I think Mrs Cross is rightly concerned there. That is certainly an issue that she was pursuing. I note with some concern that in the short space of 22 months the number of senior officers has risen by some 17 per cent. Is that really necessary? It is good to see the recommendation in paragraph 2.20 as a result of that. I think that we do need, especially in a small jurisdiction, but just as a matter of good practice, to avoid empire building in any way.
The next area relates to the refusal to answer questions. As someone who has been on an estimates committee as a member and sat through some seven budgets as a minister and answered all manner of questions put to me, and seen all my colleagues do the same, I am absolutely amazed that the most sensible practice we have always adopted in this place, that is, that ministers should answer questions as best they can, has been breached.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .