Page 3641 - Week 08 - Friday, 24 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
think this effectively meets both of the positions in the middle and is a fair outcome.
It may mean the need for an update, but the parties will measure their tactics in a way that will see that the costings that are submitted before the PBU comes out will be the ones that will not be affected by that update. I think that will meet that requirement of getting on with some of the work whilst perhaps, through the tactical approach, not necessarily seeing ones that need to go back. If it does not quite work this time—I think it will—as Mr Smyth mentioned, we will have a review process and that is something we can consider later.
I will move the amendments later in the debate but, in conclusion, the Greens support this bill and the added transparency and robustness that it will deliver to the ACT election process.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (5.03), in reply: I thank the shadow treasurer and Mr Rattenbury for their contributions. I recognise that in the Election Commitments Costing Bill we seek to put in place legislation to govern the process of costing election commitments. This bill makes that process more open and more transparent. It is a fit-for-purpose addition to the robust financial management framework that we have in the territory.
The bill will be accompanied by guidelines for costing election commitments. These guidelines provide further details on the costing principles and administrative processes that will be followed by Treasury when costing election commitments. Given the importance of this bill, the government has consulted widely in its development and, as previous speakers have alluded, it was informed by recommendations of the trial collaborative select committee on election commitments that looked at the exposure draft.
The bill will both complement and strengthen the frameworks that already exist in the territory during an election period. These frameworks include the guideline on caretaker conventions which prescribe arrangements and behaviours that are accepted practice up to the formation of a new government, and the Financial Management Act 1996, which requires a pre-election budget update be issued to inform all interested parties on the current financial position of the territory prior to an election.
The government is committed to providing the territory with a transparent framework that, if used to its full potential, will provide the community with assurance that election commitment costings are materially correct. I think all members would acknowledge how important it is in our system of government that the community can rely on the information that is produced by political parties and that there are processes capable of verifying this information. I stress the point that this will only be the case if it is used to its full potential because, of course, it is left to each party or independent member to participate in this process.
However, I think most of us would like to think that if you are running for public office, you understand and accept the need for high levels of openness and transparency to maintain voter confidence. In the discussion in the collaborative
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video