Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 724 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Mrs Carnell raised an issue about Rosemary Follett. I must say that it was a dishonest representation of the way that Rosemary Follett dealt with budgets. It was a completely dishonest representation of Rosemary Follett's position. The fact of the matter is that Rosemary Follett's position in relation to budgets could still have applied today had this Government adopted the same principles - that is, brought it forward in time for sufficient scrutiny to have it passed by the day upon which they wanted it passed. The facts of the matter are that the Government has deliberately squeezed the sitting pattern to ensure that there is not proper scrutiny. If the Government is serious about scrutiny, why on earth are the sitting days in May from the 13th to the 15th there? Why on earth are the sitting days from the 17th to the 19th there, if they are serious about scrutiny?

No; this is something that has been deliberately engineered to ensure that there is only three weeks of scrutiny of this Government's budget. That is why this has been engineered. There is absolutely no doubt about it, and the dishonest representation of Rosemary Follett's position in relation to budgets is the thing that riles me most, because it is just patently dishonest to present her position in that way. The fact of the matter is that, when it comes to Rosemary Follett's position, there was always adequate time to consider the budget. Those people opposite, who are in such a rush now, were the ones that always had the brakes on. So, do not try to present Rosemary Follett's position as being something akin to what you people are up to now, because there are no similarities whatsoever.

Mr Speaker, I call on members to support the amendments which I have put forward, for good reasons. Those reasons go to the issue of accountability and, as my colleague Ms McRae has pointed out, to ensure that there is adequate time for members to consider all aspects of the budget. This is, after all, the most important decision we will take this year. It was the most important decision that we took last year, and the year before. Therefore, in my view, and I think in any reasonable, thinking member's view, there ought to be adequate time to consider this budget.

Let me draw your attention to the 1995-96 Estimates Committee report, just to re-emphasise the need to have adequate time to consider the budget. Yes, it is true that the Estimates Committee did refer to the departmental annual reports in the context of its recommendations. Nevertheless, the important issue is the budget, not the annual reports. We will consider them later on. We can consider them at any time and subject the Government to scrutiny on those scores and, of course, criticise them for failure to perform. But the budget decisions have to be done against a background of scrutiny before the vote is taken in this chamber, and three weeks is not long enough. It never was long enough. If the Government was serious about getting this budget through early, it should have brought it forward earlier, but at the same time, when it put together its sitting pattern, built in sufficient time to ensure that there was proper scrutiny. There is not now.

Let me go to these recommendations. The recommendations talk about having at least six clear weeks without sittings of the Assembly and making sure that they are programmed in to ensure that people can have proper scrutiny of the budget. I do not want to sacrifice that opportunity, because I have sat at estimates committees on both sides and I know that you need adequate time to deal with the budget, and three weeks is not long enough.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .