Page 596 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is the standard motion that has been brought each year this term to establish the Select Committee on Estimates to examine the subsequent financial year’s budget papers. There are two minor tweaks. The committee this year, via agreement between the government and the crossbenchers, will constitute three members as opposed to the traditional five. Apparently, there is something happening later in the year that we are all worried about.
The committee will constitute three members, one from the opposition, one from the government and one from the crossbench with, as usual, the committee to be chaired by the opposition. The other change is just to accommodate a smaller committee and the workings of what can often be a very gruelling estimates hearing schedule in June, where typically members of that committee do go down. I speak from the experience of having chaired that committee a couple of times this term, and anybody with a lurgy can affect those in the room, which does make it difficult to ensure that everyone is there every day.
There is a special clause in the resolution to establish that this year’s committee has an alternative definition of “quorum” to what is found in our standing orders. A quorum for the purposes of this committee will be two members of the committee for taking evidence, which is in line with the standing orders or, alternatively, a member of the committee and any other non-executive member of the Assembly. This is a failsafe to ensure that the estimates hearings can continue should the worst happen to a couple of members during that hearing period. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra) (11.31): The government is supporting this motion but, in doing so, I will iterate what I do every year—several times a year—that I am not convinced that establishing an estimates committee is the best way to review an appropriation bill. We already have established standing committees, which are well equipped to review areas in the budget most relevant to them as, indeed, they do every single year with annual reports hearings. But, in the absence of agreement for another year on doing this, the motion in the current form does seem to be the next best option.
This year, as Mr Wall stated, we will have a smaller estimates committee, which is consistent with the changes we made to committees close to two years ago, where we reduced the sizes generally from five or four to three members. This does have the benefit of the committee hopefully being a touch more agile if it needs to meet quickly.
The motion also contains an important provision, I believe at point 6, which Mr Wall elaborated on, which makes clear what will be the quorum requirements for the purposes of taking evidence, for this committee only. This makes a lot of sense, especially with a smaller committee. Under our usual rules, only two members of a committee are required for the taking of evidence but, of course, with a small committee this puts an enormous pressure on all of those committee members. This clause anticipates that there may be absences, which is almost guaranteed because we know that by the second week the room becomes something of a pit of sickness.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video