Page 2149 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In its consideration of the budget, the Select Committee on Estimates discusses a wide range of issues and has made 66 recommendations. The government has responded to each recommendation. The committee’s report also included a part 2, additional comments and dissenting report, and the government has broadly responded to that part of the report. I will not take the Assembly’s time by working through each of the select committee’s 66 recommendations as these are separately discussed in the response document.
The government’s response to the estimates report appropriately addresses these important recommendations and many other issues that were raised in the report. Broadly speaking, the recommendations included in the report were, in most cases, in line with practices or processes already undertaken by this government or planned for the future. The government accepted or noted the majority of the comments or recommendations and thanks the committee for the rigour of the report.
Conversely, the dissenting report of Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Burke has over 160 recommendations. I must say that the government is more than slightly perplexed by the report and by many of the recommendations in the report, especially when the members contributing to the report acknowledge the conduct of the committee chair and his ability to conduct proceedings in a generally efficient and professional manner. Yet again, we see a report that makes little contribution to the consideration of expenditure proposals or provides any reasonable alternative to the resource allocations proposed in the 2007-08 budget. Rather, we see a political grab bag of unfounded statements.
As the government’s response to the dissenting report outlines, the report and many of its recommendations are unclear and contain little substance. In some instances, there is little or no justification for the recommendations. In several cases, the recommendations are prefaced by unsubstantiated comments and allegations. The report contains numerous objective judgements and often derisory remarks on the responses of ministers and officials. In some instances, the authors are simply mocking.
It is also important to note that a number of the comments and recommendations ignored well-established sources of information, benchmarking and natural comparisons. In other cases, some of the recommendations of Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Burke are simply wrong; they are simply false. The authors also appear to be ignorant of the valuable information provided through the question on notice process, or at times have simply ignored this information, which might have weakened their politically motivated commentary.
The government believes the dissenting report from Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Burke lacks balance, objectivity, evidence, research, accuracy and relevance to the issues concerning the estimates committee. The report is merely a political document that has been used as a vehicle to make unsubstantiated political allegations, but particularly concerning are the comments in relation to the territory’s health system and health outcomes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .