General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2

Debate resumed from 3 March 2009.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [2.50 p.m.]: The inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 into the budget estimates examined a number of portfolio areas. The committee also held two supplementary hearings, one into the portfolio area of Education and Training and one into Disability Services. I state at the outset that this year the budget estimates process was much smoother than it has been in the past because members had the benefit of focusing on budget estimates outside of sitting days. I was grateful to Ministers who chose not to make long opening statements because this enabled committee members to ask more questions.

Ministers have their own style when answering questions but it is more beneficial when a Minister attempts to answer the questions rather than seeking to use up valuable time with long and verbose answers or not attempting to answer the question. Sometimes it is good to review some of the questions asked because things change. A number of questions were asked of the Minister for Health, and Minister for the Central Coast, the Hon. John Della Bosca, who had not long been the health Minister, having been handballed that position from the former Minister, Reba Meagher.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Reba who?

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Indeed, "Reba who?" was the question. The Minister was very interested in answering some of our questions but had no answers on the number of displaced staff or the growing numbers in the system. I note that there has been little or no change with respect to displaced staff and the cost to the budget of those staff. Discussion took place about the rate and reporting of preventable deaths. Questions were asked about the hospital system in general. Since the budget estimates were presented we have had inquiries into a number of health issues, including the Garling inquiry into health services in general.

Questions were asked about health performance data and the operation of the New South Wales Ambulance Service. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 also undertook an inquiry into the New South Wales Ambulance Service and very few answers were given during the budget estimates process that gave any support to the notion that Ambulance Service management issues would be fixed. That has been highlighted by the response to the Ambulance Service inquiry report in that the Government and the Minister have agreed to only one of the 44 recommendations—the recommendation that they agree to the committee doing a review after 12 months, which is in October this year.

Further questions were asked about the fact that funding for public dental health in New South Wales is the worst of that in any State or Territory in Australia, below Tasmania's. Questions relating to the Central Coast involved traffic blockages on the F3. However, I note that alternative strategies with respect to traffic management on the F3 have been undertaken, and after pressure from the Coalition those issues have finally been resolved. The closure of police stations, which is becoming somewhat of a pattern—and I refer to the closure of Kincumber police station—was also the subject of questioning. Also questions were asked about the operation of The Entrance fire station, Kariong High School and other issues. However, the bulk of questioning related to health matters.

With respect to ageing and disability services, questions concerned the lack of respite packages and blockages of respite centres. Also of interest was the number of Department of Disability, Ageing and Home Care clients staying for extended periods in respite centres. The Minister was asked about whether the Stronger Together supported accommodation program is meeting its targets in terms of budgets and placements. The Minister gave some very unsatisfactory answers, and this resulted in the need for a supplementary hearing.

Questions were asked about the Program of Aids for Disabled Persons. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 has undertaken an inquiry into those issues because of questions asked during the budget estimates process. The Government has responded a little more favourably in terms of those recommendations, but I look forward to debate on that on another day. With respect to the Education and Training portfolio area, questions were asked about asbestos in school buildings, calling for information on surveys undertaken to be publicly available. Indeed, the Government was embarrassed into making some admissions about that. Questions were asked about the operation of the Priority Schools Funding Program and the Priority Action Schools Program for economically disadvantaged schools. The Minister has back flipped on some of those issues. Questions also related to the unsatisfactory situation of air conditioning in some school classrooms and maintenance in schools. I note that since the budget estimates hearings the Rudd Government has moved to bail out the New South Wales Government by providing funding for maintenance in education. Money that could have been spent on educational programs has to be spent on repairing toilets and the like.

Questions were asked during the estimates hearings about support for children with special needs and disabilities, and some very unsatisfactory answers were given. Indeed, the public school system is very disappointed with funding for children with special needs and disabled children. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 has an ongoing interest and may pursue further questions on this matter. Operation of the High School Certificate helpline and the proposed national school curriculum were also the subject of questioning. There are also interesting questions about the school transport system, which has been the subject of a backflip from the Government because of the unpopularity of changes to the school bus transport system.

Of course, one of the most important questions was about the sale of assets. We know that the Government is financially bankrupt and questions were asked about the sale of police stations, the sale and disposal of education assets, including Seaforth TAFE, and the sale of land at Hurlstone Agricultural High School. These questions were rightly asked during the budget estimates process and embarrassed the Government to the point that a further inquiry will be held.

The questions that were raised were also raised in the estimates inquiry—about whether there were plans to sell Hurlstone Agricultural High School, how much of the land would be sold, and whether the department had had any consultation with the school regarding the sale. The committee transcripts and the director general's answers in relation to that issue make interesting reading. Certainly that issue has not gone away, and it will not go away, and members in this place will be very aware of it.

The committee also dealt with the portfolio areas of Women and Community Services. The committee's timetable allowed less time for the portfolio of Women, and long answers from the Minister meant that we had even less time to deal with that portfolio. That was a timetable glitch, and the committee will ensure that we spend more time on that portfolio in the future. We will also ensure that the Minister does not use up quite so much of the timetable with such long answers to the questions asked. Issues raised before the committee included bullying and harassment, the location of the Office for Women, and the Domestic Violence Prevention Policy Unit. As I said at the outset, the programming and timetabling of the estimates process was so much better in terms of our ability to focus on the issues. However, the ability of the Ministers to focus on the issues was another matter.

With regard to the Community Services portfolio, the committee asked valid and probing questions about the "Breaking the Silence" report and about the department's response, or lack thereof, to that report. As with the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio, there have been poor responses in terms of what is happening in the Community Services portfolio. Issues were raised concerning the role of the Department of Community Services. As time has moved on—this is an historical view of what was asked about—the questions asked about the Department of Community Services are now the subject of another inquiry, the Wood special commission of inquiry, which looked into the Department of Community Services and changes happening within that department.

The questions that have been raised within the budget estimates process from General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 were probing questions leading to very important issues, many of which we have seen continue, sadly, without results and in respect of some we have seen backflips. However, as the story unfolds, what we see from this Government is mismanagement over and over again. That is for all to see in the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 entitled "Budget Estimates 2008-2009". I thank the committee members and the committee staff, who do an outstanding job. I commend the report to the House.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.03 p.m.]: The report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 does make some comments about the allocation of time to various ministerial portfolios, including the amount of time allocated to the portfolio of the Minister for Women. I believe the committee made valid observations. It is extremely difficult to come up with an estimates timetable, and the House has many difficult issues to deal with. I think last year a large number of people were involved in setting the budget estimates timetable, and no objections were made before the House adopted the timetable unanimously. Nevertheless, I think that perhaps was overlooked by members, and the committee has brought that aspect to our attention.

If I may be indulged to refer to a motion I currently have before the House outside the Order of Precedence so therefore there is no anticipation involved, this year the portfolio of the Minister for Women has been allocated 4½ hours, the largest amount of time allocated to any portfolio. It is entirely open to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 to spend all of the 4½ hours considering the portfolio of Women. If that is what the committee resolves to do, so be it. The committee may equally wish to spend some time looking at the Education and Training portfolio, which is also part of the responsibility of Minister Verity Firth. But these are very difficult issues. Obviously the Ministry for Women does not spend as much money as the various agencies involved in the Education and Training portfolio, but we should not apportion time according to the amount of money spent. I encourage General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 to give serious consideration to that issue when it holds its deliberative meeting just prior to the budget estimates hearing to be held in September.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.05 p.m.]: Members are probably aware by now that I am not a great lover of the budget estimates process. However, during the process one learns lots of interesting things about the relevant portfolios—even when other members are merely trying to destroy whatever a portfolio is trying to work towards. Indeed, the budget estimates process taught our committee members a lot. I want to contribute to the debate about the committee requesting reprogramming of the timetable in relation to the allocation of time for the portfolio of Women. There was not any angst in the committee, or any anger directed towards one member by another, because we recognised that the timetable had been negotiated. It was not until the situation arose that we realised what we had done to ourselves—that is, we had not left enough time to discuss even a fraction of the issues relating to the portfolio of Women. The committee decided unanimously to write to the persons who organise the committee timetable, and we are very happy that by extending the period of time for the Minister for Women the committee will be able to ensure that women's issues receive a proper airing through the budget estimates process.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.07 p.m.], in reply: I look forward to budget estimates this year. But more than that, I look forward to working with General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, which is a wonderful committee with great support staff. The committee is holding ongoing inquiries into the bullying of children and young people. As Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 I am very proud of the work done by the committee throughout the estimates process and during our inquiries. I am also very proud of the members of that committee and its staff. As the committee's deputy chair, the Hon. Christine Robertson, said, certainly the estimates process with General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 is conducted with a great deal of support from all members, who play their various roles in the estimates process. I commend the report to the House.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.