Page 717 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a commitment to parliamentary reform. I believe that any measure that can enhance the ability of the legislature to perform its scrutiny role enhances transparency in the way that budgets are formulated and implemented and promotes more efficient allocation of scarce financial resources. It is certainly worthy of further examination. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.27): The government is pleased to lend its support to the motion before us today seeking to establish an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure. As Mr Rattenbury has indicated, the merit of appointing a parliamentary budget officer was something which was agreed between the Labor Party and the Greens in the lead-up to the formation of this government and it is a matter which we believe warrants further detailed consideration.
I am very pleased to say that overall the government and the Greens have been effective in putting together a series of amendments to our standing orders and other measures which are designed to strengthen the role of the legislature. That is something which I believe demonstrates the strength of the agreement in place and our willingness to implement it in a timely manner. The motion before us today is just another step in that process. It identifies that the development of a budget office, if you like, or a budget officer within the secretariat of the ACT Legislative Assembly, gives greater capacity to the Assembly and its committees to scrutinise the work of the government when it proposes appropriations in this place.
The merit of doing so, the costs and benefits of doing so, particularly in a small Assembly, are all matters that warrant consideration. We do need to look at the resources that are potentially involved in the establishment of such a function, the relative costs and benefits of doing so, and indeed how that would work in relation to estimates committees formed by this place or, indeed, other committees that perform that function in this place. The inquiry is welcome on the government’s part. We look forward to seeing the outcome of that and also to contributing to the inquiry once it is commenced.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.29): The opposition is happy to support this motion today. First and foremost, I think it is worth commenting that the concept of a parliamentary budget officer is a reasonable one and is one worth considering, particularly if we look at the last few years in terms of scrutiny of the budget and the way that the government has treated that scrutiny. We have seen, in the last few years, the government stacking the estimates committee in order to avoid scrutiny. We have seen government chairs whose main role, it seemed to us, seemed to be to run interference for ministers rather than actually ask questions of ministers, to prevent genuine scrutiny of budgets. We have seen them allow ministers to ramble on, to filibuster. Of course, the other aspect of proper budgetary scrutiny is the way that these committees operate.
But in terms of providing expert advice, I think it is fair to say that not many people in the Assembly have expertise in budgeting, although all of us develop experience over time in various ways, whether it is through the parliament or otherwise, and extra advice. And it must be said that the resources of the Assembly are very limited. Our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .