Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 June 2009) . . Page.. 2631 ..
Mr Speaker presented the following paper:
Estimates 2009-2010—Select Committee—Report—Appropriation Bill 2009-2010—Speaker’s response dated June 2009.
Appropriation Bill 2009-2010
[Cognate paper: Estimates 2009-2010—Select Committee report—government response]
Debate resumed from 7 May 2009.
MR SPEAKER: I understand it is the wish of the Assembly to debate this bill cognately with the government’s response to the report of the Select Committee on Estimates 2009-2010. That being the case, I remind members that, in debating order of the day No 1, executive business, they may also address their remarks to the government response to the estimates report.
Standing order 180 sets down the order in which this bill will be considered. That is, in the detail stage, any schedule expressing the services for which the appropriation is to be made must be considered before the clauses and, unless the Assembly otherwise orders, the schedules will be considered by proposed expenditure in the order shown.
With the concurrence of the Assembly, I am proposing that the Assembly consider schedule 1 by each part, consisting of net cost of outputs, capital injection and payments on behalf of the territory. Is this the wish of the Assembly? That being so, schedule 1 will be considered by each part, consisting of net cost of outputs, capital injection and payments on behalf of the territory; then the clauses prior to schedule 2 and the title.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.1—Legislative Assembly Secretariat, $6,163,000 (net cost of outputs), $691,000 (capital injection) and $5,495,000 (payments on behalf of the territory), totalling $12,349,000.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.13): Mr Speaker, the estimates committee report made three recommendations against the ACT Legislative Assembly Secretariat, recommendations 10, 11 and 12. I notice that in the Treasurer’s response, recommendation 10 is noted, recommendation 11 is noted and recommendation 12 is not agreed. It is interesting that recommendations 10 and 11 are noted, and it says that this is a matter for the Legislative Assembly Secretariat, but recommendation 12, which is not agreed, even though it is a matter for the Legislative Assembly Secretariat, is quite curious: they do not agree to non-executive members’ offices having the same sort of access to information and communications technology as do the executive members. The reason given states: