Page 1733 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
being an official provided. I do not know exactly what time that was but it was prior to the budget speech. I think it was Ms Smithies at the time, before she was the Under Treasurer. We got to ask a lot of questions about a number of the technical aspects of the budget, and that was useful. We also got it earlier.
I think last year was the latest we ever got it. And we have seen that, if the government can get away with giving the information as late as possible, they do. I recall last year getting it virtually as we were walking down to question time. That was obviously designed to prevent us having any information ahead of time.
We have heard the Treasurer talk about having the estimates process. Yes, that is very important. We will scrutinise the budget and we will have the debate, which is very important as well. But the day of the budget is an important part of the debate. It is when the government puts its case as to what are the central themes in the budget, why they have delivered a deficit or a surplus and all the factors that have gone into that.
If you look at what happens federally, we talk about the lockup. As I understand it, both staff and members are able to access the lockup federally and, in fact, what normally happens is that, for instance, under the current practice, as I understand it, we would see senior staff who are nominated by the opposition going into the lockup. They would normally be there all day. Once they are there, they cannot leave.
That allows the shadow treasurer or the opposition leader to come in at some point and receive the briefing from their advisers who have been in the lockup and got the information. Obviously once that person is in the lockup they cannot leave. But the shadow treasurer and opposition leader are then able to come in at the tail end of it and get that information so that they can absorb what it is that is in the budget and then actually give some reasonable comment.
If we look at what happens federally, we see normally a special 7.30 Report at 8 o’clock. Just after the original speech from the Treasurer, they will normally talk to the Treasurer and they will talk to the shadow treasurer or the opposition leader. That has to be in some way informed. Likewise, in the ACT, the Greens will be asked, as we will be asked, on the day, very soon after, to give some reasonable comment. What Ms Gallagher has proposed is quite vague. We know there will be discussion at some point in the lunch break about us getting a briefing. That is still pretty late in the piece.
The fundamental point here is that there is no reason why the government cannot give this information earlier and commit to doing so. Hiding behind the legalities is quite weak. There is nothing to stop them agreeing to the motion and agreeing with the principle of it, because it is a good principle. There is nothing to stop them drafting their own amendment that they will in fact provide this at a certain time and committing to that. Rather, we have got what is a relatively vague commitment to discuss this issue over the next couple of weeks and find some suitable time.
Obviously something will be better than nothing, given how it has been treated in the last few years. This is a fairly weak commitment and we are disappointed that the Greens will not be supporting the motion because I think it is important that we hold
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .