Page 2793 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
is worth reflecting that the model did work, oddly, in the sense that we were able to focus on the very specific piece of legislation. On reflection, this style probably only works around a specific piece of legislation because we were able to work on the specifics. With the three parties represented in the room, we were able to nut through the details, I think.
Having the ability to bring in some of the officials—in this case from the commonwealth, some external experts and the departmental officials from the ACT—gave us the ability to work on the bill in quite a deliberate way. As a result of the committee’s report—where we have, I guess, understood each other clearly and been able to find the common ground—the bill should now go through the Assembly in quite a quick and orderly manner. That is the advantage of the approach we have taken here.
I am not sure if it would work on more open-ended inquiries. Having the minister on the committee with the ability to make decisions around some of the issues that were raised was quite positive as well. Just as a reflection on that model, I think it does have that specific use for the future. Whether it has a broader application I am somewhat more doubtful. In terms of the specifics of the inquiry, as Mr Smyth noted, ultimately the committee has supported the broad intent of the legislation with some adjustments.
There are a couple of important points which I will just highlight. The first is under recommendation 1. I think this was, again, accepted comfortably by all members of the committee. It is the idea that, as we bring this system into place, we need to do our best to set it up to work in the sense of Treasury, in particular, being made available to the non-government parties to perhaps brief them at the start of the process on assumptions, expectations and the like so that a positive relationship is built up and we do not end up with the situation, once the costings are underway, of perhaps public arguments about methodology and the like. I think it is in everybody’s interests to have that clear sense of how it works and what the assumptions are. For my mind, a particularly important part of it is actually having that discussion at the beginning and briefing the relevant individuals in the party groupings as to how the system is going to work. I appreciate the Treasurer’s support in indicating his willingness for Treasury staff to be made available for that.
There was quite some discussion about what role the minister has in this process and the like. Again, I think we have found a positive way forward there in observing that. We want Treasury officials to be able to operate almost in a little bubble on this one. They are obviously still ultimately responsible to the minister, but I think the recommendations around the minister having a different relationship in relation to this matter from what he would normally with the department is a good distinction that has been drawn out. Again, I think it clarifies the intent of how the system should operate. Outside of that, I am obviously very supportive of the recommendations. I appreciate the support of the committee while I was away in terms of continuing to work through this process and the flexibility there.
I did want to comment briefly on the parliamentary budget officer, which Mr Smyth particularly talked about. Of course, I was on the administration and procedures
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video