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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3820 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

What started as an experiment in Victoria in 2000-innovation in public financial management processes-appears on evidence available to date to have been most successful. The sky in Victoria certainly has not fallen in as a result of these important changes to public budgetary policy. We can only conclude from it that the changes in Victoria, which have been a success, are now an accepted part of the budgetary processes in that state. Given that outcome, we are proposing a similar approach in the ACT. We are aware that many of the amendments proposed by the government appear to have been based on that Victorian legislation. We find it a little strange, therefore, that our proposed amendments are not incorporated in the government's package. Mr Bracks, the Victorian Premier and a former Treasurer, said in his second reading speech:

• the budget financial statements have been prepared in a way that is consistent with stated accounting principles

• the estimated statements are consistent with the targets for the Government's key financial measures

• the statements have been properly prepared on the basis of the assumptions that underlie them

• the methodologies used to determine the assumptions are reasonable.

Mr Bracks emphasised that while the Auditor-General will play a key role in the scrutiny of the budget, the responsibility for delivering budget results remains entirely with the government. Quite properly, the government retains responsibility for setting out the budget, for monitoring the its performance and, where necessary, adjusting budget policies and priorities to take account of inevitable changes in circumstances that occur during the financial year. Mr Bracks, when introducing his amendment along the lines of my proposed amendment, described it as the most significant amendment of the package of amendments proposed by the Victorian government in 2000. If that was the view of the Stanhope government's colleagues in Victoria, we see no reason why the Auditor-General should not have a similar role in the budgetary process in the ACT.

This bill warrants support as it represents a sound development of the financial management framework in the ACT. It is unfortunate that the government, when preparing this bill, did not choose to include in its provisions the necessity for independent reviews of the assumptions and methodologies underlying the annual budget. The inclusion of our amendments will strengthen a bill that will enhance the quality of information available to the Assembly and to the community about the way in which the annual budget is prepared in the ACT.

We support the speedy passage of this bill, given the already short timeframe before the delivery of next year's budget. When I move the important and sensible amendments that I have foreshadowed, I will seek support for them from all Assembly members.

MS TUCKER (10.49): Amendments to the Financial Management Act will require additional information to be supplied in the future relating to the budgetary process. Mid-year financial reports and pre-election statements will also be required concerning the

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