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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1439 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I do not move this motion with any great enthusiasm. In fact, to be perfectly frank, the government's view is that the process of releasing the budget in draft form in January and having extensive debate on the provisions of the draft budget in the standing committees of the Assembly has provided a great degree of scrutiny of the budget process.

I note that those opposite have maintained that what is likely to come down on 23 May is going to be basically a re-run of what was in the draft budget. If that is what they believe, it would seem to me there is less of a case for there to be a further process of scrutiny of what they would argue is much the same document. Well, in fact, it will not be the same document. There will be differences, and that may be the justification for having a further round of estimates. It was the government's undertaking when constructing the framework for the budget this year that we would put aside time between the tabling of the budget and the passing of the budget-touch wood-for there to be an estimates committee process.

Mr Berry: It is exactly the same as before, anyway.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, the process is the same as before, Mr Speaker, and that is why I have moved the motion in that form. I will make one comment about this. It is obvious, looking at estimates committees in recent years, that they have become less and less a process of reviewing the provision made by the government of the day for allocations to particular matters within its budget, and less a general exercise in scrutiny of the government. They have become just an exercise in asking the government questions on almost any topic that happens to come to the attention of members of committees, irrespective of whether they are related to the budget or not.

Mr Corbell: On anything you are spending money on.

MR HUMPHRIES: Everything can be tied back very loosely to the spending of money, of course, but I suspect that a casual observer would draw the conclusion that there were only very tenuous links on most occasions between the items outlaid in the budget and the matters that were brought forward by members in those committees. It is true that there are sometimes whole swathes of the budget which are not commented on or touched upon by that process. In the perhaps forlorn hope that the estimates process will be one about considering the estimates made by the government in its budget and assessing those-I know I live in hope, Mr Speaker; I live in hope that this might happen one day-I have moved the motion which is before the Assembly, which is simply a re-run of previous versions of the Estimates Committee.

I also support, incidentally, the amendment which will be moved by Ms Tucker to include Mr Kaine. It was not the intention to classify Mr Kaine as an Independent. I know he would be highly offended by that reference, Mr Speaker, and I will withdraw any unintended reference or slur on his name.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, you might like to move your motion now, please. We can then have a debate.

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