Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 725 ..

Mr Humphries: It is actually more like six, Wayne.

MR BERRY: It is all right to say, "We want to get the budget through early"; but we must not be sucked into a rushed budget just to satisfy the Government and sacrifice proper scrutiny. The fact of the matter is that it takes time to set up the budget process. The report has to be in at least a week before the next sitting. So, there is a very short time for consideration of the budget. It is certainly not six weeks anyway, as recommended by the Estimates Committee as a result of its consideration of the 1995-96 budget. But you never mentioned that. If you had mentioned that in the context of what Rosemary Follett had said previously in relation to the budget, you would have been closer to being honest; but you are a mile off.

Mr Speaker, I again just plead with members to ensure that they come down with a decision which is firmly on the side of full and open scrutiny. We should not have less than six weeks to scrutinise this budget. The fact that the Government has brought the budget on at the time that it proposes is not our fault. What we want is the ability to scrutinise it. The Government now seeks to pressure members into passing its budget early, because that is what all governments want to do. They love to get their budgets through quickly, with the least possible scrutiny. That has always been the case, has it not, Mr Kaine? You would have loved to have got your budgets through quickly.

Mr Kaine: I sure would.

Mr Whitecross: In three weeks.

MR BERRY: In three weeks. In fact, in two days would be even better.

Mr Kaine: Yes. Just let us vote on it in May. Get it over and done with.

MR BERRY: Although Labor's budgets deserved to be passed within an hour, they were still subjected to long scrutiny. Mr Speaker, I re-emphasise my earlier point. Mrs Carnell's attempt to in some way attach Rosemary Follett's words to what she is doing now was a dishonest representation and must not be accepted. It is very clear from previous estimates committees that the main complaint from all of the members involved in the estimates committee process about the consideration of the budget process has been the time available to them to properly consider the budget. Mr Speaker, these amendments must be passed as they were submitted.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.

MR MOORE (5.09): I rise to speak to the amendments. Mr Speaker, it seems to me that, when Mr Berry refers to reports of select committee on estimates saying that there was more time needed to look at the budget, he fails to realise that in this particular process, as it appears to be set out now, we would have a double process - a process for looking at the budget and a process also for reviewing annual reports. This is indeed the process that the Estimates Committee was referring to for both of these issues. So, it seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the amendments moved by Mr Berry, along with a modification to the amendments proposed by Mr Humphries, should give us an entirely appropriate process.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .