Page 702 - Week 02 - Thursday, 10 March 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

MS HUNTER: Putting a territory budget together is a very big task that takes many months and resources for every department, most particularly, of course, Treasury. Evaluating it is also an enormous task that is currently left to just five members and a secretariat. I should note that we also now have the benefit of external advice that greatly assists the committee in considering the merits or otherwise of the budget and this would remain under my proposal.

Why is it better to have five people to do the work when it could be 12? The way we use public money is the most vital regular decision this place has to make and I think it is appropriate that all members participate in that process. The executive obviously have the decision-making power given to them by the Assembly and it should be the whole Assembly that participates in the evaluation of the decisions they make. Surely the best outcome is having the people who already know about the issues participating in the full budget cycle and not just half of it.

Why are the standing committees equipped to ask questions about the appropriateness of departments’ and agencies’ action but they are not equipped to consider the merit of giving those very same agencies their next round of funding? It simply does not make sense. We are a small parliament and we should be sharing the workload and expertise across all members. That is the best way to achieve the best outcomes—not by concentrating responsibility and, in some instances, turning it into political gamesmanship at the expense of real accountability.

The proposal that I have put forward improves the process for all members of this place. It allows for the greater participation of all non-executive members and it provides for a better dialogue between the executive and the Assembly—promoting a clearer cycle of accountability and hopefully fostering more meaningful engagement between executive and non-executive members. Of course, Mr Speaker, I am under no illusion that this proposal will solve all the problems and magically deliver better outcomes. That, of course, depends on the approach members take and their willingness to work together, and that applies equally to all members and ministers.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I would make the point that if it does not work, we can of course return to the select committee model next year or, in fact, there may be another way. What do we really have to lose if we trial it for a year? We know that the annual reports process delivers good outcomes and that over the years the standing committees have made many very valuable contributions, both specific suggestions for change and in general accountability and ensuring the proper use of public funds.

When this year’s process is finished we can then evaluate the options and reflect upon the respective pluses and minuses with the benefit of experience. Who knows, as I have said, perhaps there is a third path that is better again, but we will never really

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video