Page 360 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While it is pleasing to see this motion of endorsement of the Latimer House principles in our first sitting week, endorsement is obviously only the beginning of the process. There is more work to be done and, because this Seventh Assembly is somewhat different to the Sixth Assembly, it would not surprise anyone, I am sure, to see the Greens proposing that the process of developing this framework be inclusive of all parties. We must be prepared, in the spirit of the Latimer House principles, to have a democratic, transparent and accountable process and subject the process and outcomes to an evaluation over the term of the Assembly. For this reason I am moving this motion which refers to an inquiry into appropriate mechanisms to coordinate and evaluate the implementation of the Latimer House principles and the governance of the ACT to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure.
As I have already said, meaningful endorsement of the Latimer House principles requires ongoing commitment to their promotion, development and implementation, including evaluation processes. The Assembly committee system is the most appropriate vehicle for this work and referral to a committee today demonstrates clearly that we, as an Assembly, are serious about ensuring we meet the highest standards of governance and democracy as outlined through these principles.
In previous discussion in this place a couple of issues have been raised about the Latimer House principles. For example, in public hearings of the Public Accounts Committee there was discussion about the guideline which requires the establishment of an all-party committee to review and administer the parliament’s budget, which should not be subject to amendment by the executive. The former Speaker, when commenting on this matter, said that, while there are already specific conditions in the Financial Management Act 1996 recognising the independence of the Assembly, more needs to be done to ensure the legislature’s budgetary arrangements are independent from the absolute control of the executive which it rightly enjoys in respect of executive agencies. He went on to say:
… despite the discussions I have had with the budget cabinet on a number of occasions and the representations I have regularly made to the Treasurer, work on addressing changes to the way the Assembly budget is developed needs to be continued. I hope that in the 7th Assembly sensible progress can be made on this matter and I would encourage my successor to continue to pursue this matter with the executive of the day.
I also note that in discussion in the public hearing of the Public Accounts Committee of November 2007, annual and financial reports 2006-07, it was generally agreed that there may need to be further work on how some of the Latimer House principles are implemented. There was discussion about the need for there to be a balance between ensuring that government policy does not interfere with the funding of the legislature but, equally, that decisions need to be informed by the circumstances that the Treasury might find itself in. There was also discussion about whether the range of expenditure administered by the all-parties committee should include salaries for staff. Such an inclusion could arguably be consistent with the principle because, as the former Speaker said, salary allocations can restrict members’ ability to hold the government to account.
These sorts of issues can be constructively dealt with through the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure and would ensure transparency and accountability
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .