Page 1734 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this government accountable for these processes. It is important that we demonstrate that things are not going to be done as they have been done in previous years.
This place has been treated with disdain. Members of this place have been treated with disdain by the executive government. What we are seeking to do, and what Mr Smyth is seeking to do with his motion, is bring some reasonable order to how these things are done. It is quite reasonable for non-government members to get a reasonable heads-up as to what is going to be in the budget before they then have to make comment on it in the media. Those familiar with it would know that, on the afternoon, the opposition leader and the Treasurer will debate it, normally at a chamber of commerce function, and the next morning. The first debate actually happens pretty soon after. It is only a few hours after the budget is delivered.
Being reasonable in this, I think, is important. Providing one reasonable time line, not just before question time, not just before the budget speech is delivered, allows for a reasonable debate. In the end, the information is getting out there. What it means is the first day sees more informed commentary from all sides, rather than guesswork or making some assumptions based on the limited information that is given to the opposition.
It is a motion that is certainly worthy of our support, and all it would seek to do is keep the government accountable and get them to actually pin down when they would provide it and ensure that they have provided this information at a reasonable time. This government appears not to have learned much from when it was a majority government. It still wants to operate in basically the same way. What this motion seeks to do is get them to act in a more reasonable way, which in is the interest of all members and, in turn, in the interests of all Canberrans. We are disappointed that it appears the motion will be going down, with the Greens and the Labor Party voting against it.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (6.28): I rise to support the Treasurer’s position in relation to this and to dispel some of the myths propagated by the Liberal Party in relation to these matters. It has never been the practice in this place that there be some form of lockup in the Assembly; nor has it been the practice in this place that there have been incredibly generous provisions when it comes to the briefing of non-executive members in relation to the details of the budget.
Certainly the practice of the Carnell government was a very frugal one when it came to the provision of budget information. It is certainly my experience as an opposition member at that time—and that goes back to the first Carnell government, in 1997—that opposition members received a budget pack and they received it around lunchtime on budget day. And that was it. You got the budget pack. You got the CD-ROM. You got the papers. But that was it. You did not get anything else. You did not get anything further. So this myth that has been propagated by the Liberal Party that something terrible has happened and everything has changed really is a bit silly.
I think the key issue that needs to be remembered here is that it is a courtesy extended to members by the government of the day to provide information on the budget before
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .