Page 3640 - Week 08 - Friday, 24 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The committee environment enabled us to sort details and share understanding in quite an effective way. The point that perhaps illustrates that best is that, as we went through the conversation, we realised that, in some regards, we had come from some quite different places where perhaps we were looking at two different models. The model we ultimately adopted was one where Treasury verifies costings that parties have already made, whereas the other alternative was a parliamentary budget office style approach where Treasury worked up the costings for us in advance of the policy being released.
Whilst both of those are valid models—and I think we will continue to discuss the latter—through the process we were able to come to a clear understanding of which of them we were talking about and therefore iron out the details in the legislation with a clear understanding of what we were aspiring to and not being at cross-purposes. If we had been doing the usual legislation at 20 paces, it might have been much harder to sort out and we could well have come into the chamber with literally reams of amendments. As it turns out, only two amendments to this bill need to be discussed, and that demonstrates the worth of the committee. For a bill that impacts so directly on the political campaign of each of the three parties, to have only two amendments speaks volumes.
I encourage Assemblies in the future to consider more collaborative committees for issues like this where there is an exposure draft of legislation to focus on. A corollary of that is that I would encourage governments of the future to consider using the exposure draft of legislation process more fully or more frequently, because that will enable the Assembly to take a process like this and work with it. If we think about something like the Nature Conservation Act—which one day eventually might be brought in here for an update—that is an immensely complex piece of legislation. It certainly will be by the time it comes on with very substantial amendments, and that may be the sort of thing that would benefit from this process as well. I am sure there are others, but that is one that springs to mind.
I will speak very briefly to my two amendments. They relate to the day on which leaders will be able to request Treasury to cost a commitment. The committee examined this issue and recommended that it would be sensible for the start date to take place immediately after the last sitting day of the Assembly. This was proposed on the basis that there is much work to be done in costing commitments and that it would be sensible and fair on everyone involved, including the political parties, the voters and, to be honest, the staff at Treasury, to run the process for longer.
In response, the government raised some concerns, particularly around the pre-election budget update and proposed that the start date align with the start of the caretaker period. Having looked at the issues the government raised about the pre-election budget update, I think the issues arising are very much about macro trends and speak more of the fiscal strategies of the parties. There is potentially some detail around a few of the parameters where costings may be involved. But we have proposed a compromise position of starting the process on Monday, 3 September. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video