Page 3219 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(2) if the Assembly is not sitting when the Committee has completed its inquiry the Committee may send its report to the Speaker or, in the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, who is authorised to give directions for its printing, publishing and circulation;
(3) on the Committee presenting its report to the Assembly, resumption of debate on the question “That this Bill be agreed to in principle” be set down as an order of the day for the next sitting; and
(4) the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
Mr Speaker, it is not surprising today that we have seen the government introduce a second appropriation bill in the space of just a few months since the budget passed this place. We have suspected that it has been coming for some time, and I will certainly now read with interest and in detail for the second time in 2007, how the government is planning on spending revenue received from ACT residents.
Obviously now is not the appropriate time to talk in depth about the aspects of this particular bill, nor, indeed, of why a government would need to introduce a second appropriation in the space of a few months. However, such a debate, based on a high level of scrutiny, is certainly needed.
Mr Speaker, that is the purpose of my motion today—this bill needs to be scrutinised. If passed, it will result in the expenditure of a great deal of money of the people of Canberra, the taxes they have paid, and it is appropriate that, before this is done, a committee of the Legislative Assembly have a chance to examine the bill in detail. The expenditure that it contains and the officials and ministers who have proposed that expenditure do need to be questioned. The public accounts committee is the appropriate forum for this questioning to be conducted.
I note, Mr Speaker, that on the last two occasions when government has required subsequent appropriation bills—in 2003 following the bushfires and in 2002 soon after those opposite came to power—the appropriation bills were referred to committees for further scrutiny. I quote Mr Stanhope’s predecessor, Mr Quinlan, who said in 2002:
I would be quite happy for this committee to be appointed and go through all of the items that are contained within this appropriation bill.
It is worth noting that the additional appropriation bill that Mr Quinlan was commenting on was for just over $19 million, substantially less than that being put to the Assembly today. Mr Speaker, based on the government’s announcements over the last few weeks and the Chief Minister’s own comments on radio this morning, this bill appropriates significantly more money than that.
Similarly, Mr Quinlan said in 2003 after the bushfires required a further appropriation, and in response to a motion from my colleague, Mr Smyth, to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .