Estimates Debate — In Committee

I take the opportunity to remind members that the debate on the Appropriation (2003/04) Estimates Bill should be confined to the current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The debate must relate to a matter for which an appropriation is included in the estimates. The estimates debate is not a vehicle to scrutinise and debate past performance—that is the function of the financial review debate. In general, the purpose of the estimates debate is not to permit a discussion of general policy, but to focus attention on the need to grant, alter, or refuse to grant particular appropriations. The chairperson of the select committee that reported on each vote may speak first. The first two speakers have 10 minutes each and subsequent speakers have 5 minutes each.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is intended to be helpful. Since we have introduced the new Standing Orders in this area, there is a slight problem about the way in which the Committee proceeds. I think it is still appropriate that the longer tradition is followed—that is, by and large Government members do not speak on a particular vote unless members of the Opposition parties choose to speak, so there is actually an engagement—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I cannot hear the member.

The new Standing Orders, which came in some time ago, present a sequential problem in this debate, in that the chairperson of a select committee that reported on a vote—normally a Government member—has the right to take the first call. However, if the Opposition parties do not want to debate that particular vote, it is rather pointless for a Government member to take a call. As a matter of procedure, Mr Chairman, it might be advisable that when you put a vote, you ask whether any non-Government party wishes to seek a call. If it does, the chair of the select committee could seek the call at that point. I think that would make things easier in terms of the process we follow.

Is there any objection to that course of action being followed?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It seems eminently sensible.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. There appears to be no objection.

Vote Audit agreed to.

Vote Office of the Clerk agreed to.

Vote Ombudsmen agreed to.

Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agreed to.

Vote Parliamentary Service agreed to.

Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage agreed to.