Page 5602 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have also duly considered Mr Smyth’s arguments. In his presentation speech, he stated that both Mr Quinlan and Mr Stanhope know what a midyear or, more accurately, a budget review means. However Mr Quinlan did not prescribe in the original legislation that the review must always be after the end of the calendar year, and perhaps he anticipated a need for flexibility. Consequently, when Mr Stanhope was Treasurer, he delivered a budget review in December 2006, I believe.
However, I must address the arguments that Mr Smyth has put forward. He has pointed to budget review arrangements in other jurisdictions. And I would like to bring to the Assembly’s notice that not all financial acts refer to the budget review and midyear review as the same thing. There are varied arrangements around the country. The commonwealth does not require the date of 31 December to have passed; instead the requirements are by 31 January or within six months of the last budget review.
Some jurisdictions have legislated specific dates, such as Victoria, which Mr Smyth mentioned in his presentation speech. However, Victoria has legislated to have their budget update by 15 December, which would not take into account the full set of figures to 31 December. Other states and territories do not prescribe a date, and the only state that legislates for exact figures is Tasmania, which asks for the figures for six months to the end of December by 15 February.
It is the Greens’ understanding that the critical issue that Mr Smyth wishes to address in this bill is not the actual way in which the midyear reviews are currently prepared; rather it deals with the period which is the subject of the review. It is important to highlight, in response to Mr Smyth’s concerns, that over the past six budget reviews the majority—and that is four of the six—were delivered after 31 December. So it covered the first six months and it was, I believe, tabled in February.
Also addressing Mr Smyth’s justification for this bill, I have taken into consideration the practice of other jurisdictions. It is important to note again that other jurisdictions such as Victoria differentiate between a midyear review and a budget review. I must remind the chamber again of the essential detail of this matter: firstly, that we are talking only to the current text of the Financial Management Act 1996, which does not refer to a midyear review but to a budget review; and, secondly, that this is regardless of whatever terms Mr Quinlan interchanged in his presentation speech in 2003 and any other documents that are not in the act.
I have also taken into account that the government requires some flexibility in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, I believe that current arrangements serve the people of the ACT. The Greens support full transparency and accountability and are calling on the Treasurer to give a commitment that the government will present all figures to 31 December as standard practice, unless the government can give the Assembly a clear explanation of the extenuating circumstances. Should the government continue to give the review before 31 December, the Greens will be open to revisiting Mr Smyth’s motion in the future.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.52): I thank Mr Smyth for bringing this legislation forward. It is part of what is becoming a fairly comprehensive legislative agenda and I am very pleased with the work that Mr Smyth has put into it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video