Page 716 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
particular motion acknowledges the increasingly complex budgetary processes undertaken by the executive and the Treasury in developing fiscal policy for the ACT.
It is probably fair to acknowledge that not all of us in this place necessarily have the expertise or even perhaps just the resources to delve into the minutiae of budget matters to the extent required to provide the high level of scrutiny expected by the public. The community in Canberra, as we know, are informed, aware and engaged in the process and the role of government and ask of us the highest standards in accountability and transparency. The development of the territory’s budget is at the core of our government and, as such, is deserving of the highest level of scrutiny by the Assembly.
Such an appointment is not an entirely new concept. Perhaps the most relevant example to our own situation is that of the parliament of Canada. On 14 March 2008, Canada’s first parliamentary budget officer was appointed pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act. This event was the culmination of a number of factors in the Canadian political landscape.
The office was created in a context where there was unprecedented public demand for transparency and accountability across both the public and private sectors, a series of large, unplanned budgetary surpluses for the Canadian government, successive minority governments that had changed the relationship between the government and the parliament and new and emerging global standards and best practices to promote financial and budgetary transparency. Surpluses are perhaps not going to be a problem we experience in the ACT, at least in the near term, but I would submit that these factors similarly apply to the ACT.
On its website it is stated that the office is there to “provide authoritative, nonpartisan financial and economic analysis to support parliament and parliamentarians in exercising their oversight role over the government’s stewardship of public funds and ensuring government transparency”. I think that is something that would be very valuable in this Assembly.
The office reports to the two presiding officers of the Canadian federal parliament and produces various reports and briefing notes. Since his appointment Canada’s first parliamentary budget officer has been quoted as saying that he sees his office’s role as “raising the quality of dialogue both inside parliament and between parliament and the government to help achieve better public policy”.
Canada is not the only jurisdiction to have such an office. The US Congress has the US Congressional Budget Office which was established in 1974. The United Kingdom parliament has a scrutiny unit which forms part of the committee office and has as its role to strengthen the scrutiny function of the house by providing specialist expertise to select committees, especially on financial matters. In South Korea there is a National Assembly Budget Office which has been established to research, analyse and apprise members on matters concerning the budget and the management of funds and finances of the state.
The Canadian innovation is worthy of serious consideration and it is for this reason that I have moved this motion today. The ALP-Greens agreement has, at paragraph 4,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .