Page 5604 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
reasonable expectation. Implicitly, it will also emphasise that when there are exceptional circumstances a special report on those circumstances could be prepared. We see this as a fairly commonsense piece of legislation. It is interesting that the Greens and Labor have gone together on this. We have not heard any substantive arguments against it. The flexibility will still be there but it will simply ensure that we have a six monthly report that actually reflects six months worth of information. That is a fairly reasonable request.
We have not heard any reasonable argument against it. We have not heard why this would somehow impact adversely on the ability of the Treasurer or the government to do their job. The flexibility would still be there to report at any other time. In fact, we would welcome the government reporting more often on not just their financial situation but a whole range of other areas. We have seen them up and down on things like capital works reports and the like. They are free at any stage to come into the Assembly and report. We would welcome it. We would welcome more information. This legislation will simply ensure that we get those regular reports and that they are consistent. That is a reasonable ask.
This is a good piece of legislation. It is another piece of legislation which is about keeping this government accountable. In this case, it is about better financial management, accountability and reporting. I commend the bill to the Assembly. I commend Mr Smyth for his work in developing the bill. I think that the arguments that have been put against it are absolutely paper thin. There has not been one substantive argument put forward by the government or the Greens as to why this legislation is not worthy of support. It would improve the situation whilst retaining the flexibility that governments have at the moment. I commend it to the Assembly.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.58), in reply: This bill arose out of the data that appears in last year’s midyear update. In a briefing from officials in my office they said that some of the elements were drawn from October data, some of the elements were drawn from November data and some of the elements were drawn from December data. That is not a clear and accurate picture of the state of the finances of the ACT and it is deplorable that that is presented to this place as some sort of midyear review. It is not accurate. You know yourself, Madam Assistant Speaker Le Couteur, as a company director, that that would not be tolerated in private enterprise. The purpose of having consistent data is so that people know exactly where you are at a point in time and so that you may do comparisons from point to point.
The argument seems to be that not everyone wants 31 December. The feds have 31 January; New South Wales does it at the end of October. The point is that they do it at a consistent point in the financial calendar, so what you get is a report that you can compare year to year. When you have been in this place long enough and you have read enough estimates reports and suggestions to improve the reports you know that one of the overwhelming suggestions over time is that there be continuity and comparability.
At 6.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video