Page 5607 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What do we see from the Greens in this area? I doubt whether the Greens leader is up to it. There is no rigour in her analysis, there is no argument and there is very little work done in terms of the financial side of the whole issue. We have had a warning, though, from the Greens that if the government do not do it then we will legislate. The government have already done it; they are already chopping and changing as they like. But flexibility means you can let them keep doing it for a couple more years and in the lead-up to an election you make it tough. That is unfortunate.
Madam Assistant Speaker, what can I say about the arguments that are being made about this proposal? The arguments do not exist. The position adopted by the Greens is a disgrace. It completely ignores the fundamental premise of the Greens-Labor agreement to ensure sound accountability in the ACT government and it seeks to develop an argument that flexibility is crucial. It ignores the importance of sound regular reporting from the government on day-to-day budgetary matters. It also ignores the capacity of any government to prepare additional reports as they might be required, as the government might seek to do at any time, should some extraordinary circumstance arise. The position of the Greens on this issue demonstrates their complete inability to appreciate essential matters related to accountability. In this instance, the Greens have been conned by the government and they have been conned by the Treasurer, who has failed to provide leadership on this matter—a point I will return to in a moment.
The position of this government—and I need to distinguish this government from that of which Ted Quinlan was a member—is equally disgraceful. The current Treasurer lacks the capacity and the ability to provide leadership in the Treasury portfolio. The way in which she has dealt with this matter of the midyear review exemplifies that lack of capacity and lack of ability.
I want to emphasise a fundamental point about my proposal. This proposal is an important matter of policy. It is a relatively minor matter in the broader scheme of things but important nonetheless. I say this because it is important to appreciate the basis for this proposal. The ACT is not simply responding to proposals that exist in other jurisdictions. This proposal is an essential part of achieving appropriate openness and accountability about the activities of the ACT government. It is a positive policy measure that is important for good governance. Former Treasurer Ted Quinlan recognised this when he introduced these proposals in 2003 and had bipartisan support on the matter.
I will return to the comments made by the Treasurer when he presented his bill in 2003, comments that the Greens clearly do not understand and the Labor Party, even now, do not understand or are ignoring, or both. Ted Quinlan said, and it is quite clear, “The proposed timing of the midyear budget review will align presentation of this information with the quarterly financial statements.”
So what is so difficult to understand about this intention? The ACT government is currently required to prepare quarterly reports where “quarterly” is defined in the Legislation Act. The midyear budget review was intended to be aligned with these quarterly reports in accordance with the Legislation Act—nothing more, nothing less. It is all very simple. When the provision for the midyear reviews was proposed by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video