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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1441 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

accountability to this place except to the extent that the Chief Minister herself was accountable to this place, and we have seen the constant attempts over the last five years to break down that accountability.

So, Mr Speaker, I am surprised that Mr Humphries, who I know well understands the division of responsibility and power in this place, would suggest that his budget should not be subjected to the scrutiny of this place and that there should be no estimates committee process this year.

I do not believe that the aborted experiment earlier this year in any way suffices as a method of scrutiny of the government's budget. I firmly believe that the legislature has still to go through the process of scrutiny of the Treasurer's budget when he brings it down because, as I pointed out already, we do not even know yet what is going to be in it. So how could we give it the tick on the basis of an experimental scrutiny by standing committees of a draft budget carried out some weeks ago which I do not believe in any way replaces the Estimates Committee?

I support the motion, and I support it wholeheartedly. I am surprised that the minister would put it forward with some sort of qualification and a question mark around whether it ought to be established.

MR CORBELL (11.49): Obviously, Mr Speaker, the Labor opposition will be supporting this motion today, and perhaps with a little bit more vigour than the government. There is one matter that I wish to address in speaking to this motion and that is the comment of the Treasurer when he indicated that he moved this motion with the somewhat forlorn hope-to use his words-that the estimates process would actually examine the budget.

Mr Speaker, we need to clarify, even before this process starts, what the purpose of the Estimates Committee is, and the accepted convention and practice relating to the examination of appropriation bills. Mr Humphries would be well aware that the convention and practice in other parliaments, particularly the federal parliament-my mind goes immediately to the practices of Senate estimates committees-is that a whole range of issues relating to government expenditure and government practice are addressed and scrutinised during their estimates process.

In the Senate estimates process you do not necessarily see questions and scrutiny applied solely and strictly to line items identified in specific ways in the budget. Often more indirect questions and scrutiny is applied because, at the end of the day, there is an understanding in the federal parliament, and there should be in this place, that the budget is the key political document of the government. It is the document which allows the government to implement its program in any particular financial year, and it covers all the activities of the government where taxpayers' moneys are being spent to implement government programs and initiatives.

Mr Speaker, in the last Estimates Committee there was criticism from the Chief Minister about the use of the Estimates Committee to examine the Bruce Stadium issue. That was an entirely legitimate use of the estimates committee process, an entirely legitimate way to scrutinise the activities of this government in relation to that debacle. The reason for that, Mr Speaker, was that the budget allocated funds for the provision of public

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