MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE - Budget Scrutiny
[11.18 a.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I move -
That the House take note of the following matter: budget scrutiny.
It was a wise woman who said to me this morning that it is not necessarily what you bring to the table through experience but what you learn along the way that is important. Reflecting on the last three weeks of parliamentary time, which has been used to scrutinise the Budget, I don't think anyone can say they have been very productive nor a great use of time. That's not a criticism of members, but more a criticism of the budget scrutiny process we have inherited.
Having participated in three Budget Estimates to date, I agree with the member for Franklin, David O'Byrne, with his recent observations: I think we can do better. The Budget Estimates process too often generates heat instead of light. It is politicised and too often disconnected from its primary purpose, which surely is the rigorous scrutiny of the state budget.
That matters because Tasmania right now faces an enormous fiscal challenge. The budget has drifted badly off course under this government. The parliament should be doing everything it can to meaningfully scrutinise the state's finances. A good place to start is to review the budget scrutiny process and the structural impediments non-government members face. The opposition and crossbench are expected to scrutinise billions of dollars of expenditure armed with little more than the budget papers, requests from community organisations, and interested stakeholders who themselves have been on tenterhooks for news of funding. Meanwhile, ministers and departmental officials arrived with lever-arch folders brimming with briefing material, data and background information that committee members aren't privy to. The result is a profound asymmetry of information. Members ask questions and hearing time is consumed chasing basic facts that should already be available.
I repeat, this is not the fault of MPs nor the secretariat. Just because we've done it this way for years doesn't dictate that we must continue this way, I think it's time for us to consider what works well elsewhere and what can we learn along the way. I think our House could learn from the processes in the other place but another example is Victoria's budgetary processes, a rolling scrutiny that occurs throughout the year that starts before the budget is handed down and goes through to the next year's budget. The committee issues detailed questionnaires to government departments seeking information that supplements the budget papers, departments provide extensive written responses which become part of the public record and provide members with a much stronger evidentiary base to frame questions and prepare reports.
After the budget, the committee conducts hearings involving ministers, departmental secretaries and senior officials. It can request clarifications and obtain additional departmental data. Then there are comprehensive reports which provide recommendations to improve transparency, performance measurement and government accountability. Arguably this is designed to improve accountability, strengthen transparency and provide parliament and the public with a much clearer understanding of government performance.
This is a conversation, a really valuable conversation, worth having for our parliament, and I thank the member for Franklin for starting this discussion. I intend to write to the Standing Orders Committee requesting that it undertake a review of the House's Budget Estimates process and consider where reforms are required to improve its effectiveness. Many of us, as part of our professional development, travel to other parliaments, we can learn things from them. So let's have the conversation in order to make our work in this place as effective as possible. I look forward to hearing other contributions on this important matter.