End of the Budget Amendment [Tabled]

[afleitch]

I'd very much like to see us "mend it, and not end it."  Without a budget, there's absolutely no reason to even pretend we're a fiscally responsible governing body.

The whole process needs overhaul, I feel, but I think we can handle something like this once a year.

I agree. If Senators and candidates are often obliged to 'cost' any proposal they put before the electorate and again within the Senate, then we should be obliged to put forward a budget that takes these expenditures into account. Otherwise legislation, with no cost attached and no matter how expensive, is legitimised.

Having no budget and scant consideration for financial cost makes for bad legislation.

[afleitch]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

I've drafted a tax bill which I've now held off from introducing now this is on the table. I've done my best to cost the bill, taking guestimates based on US data as to how much it would cost, and how that matches with economic growth and so on. I don't see the point, if this amendment passes, of doing any costing on it at all - just proposing the tax cut and to hell with the cost and impact on our expenditure.

But if I were to introduce the bill without any figures on the cost (on the basis that without a budget there would be no need) I know the first question I would be asked ; 'What's it gonna cost'

If people can ask questions about how much a bill will cost they should be able to ask how much the government costs.

[afleitch]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

I've drafted a tax bill which I've now held off from introducing now this is on the table. I've done my best to cost the bill, taking guestimates based on US data as to how much it would cost, and how that matches with economic growth and so on. I don't see the point, if this amendment passes, of doing any costing on it at all - just proposing the tax cut and to hell with the cost and impact on our expenditure.

But if I were to introduce the bill without any figures on the cost (on the basis that without a budget there would be no need) I know the first question I would be asked ; 'What's it gonna cost'

If people can ask questions about how much a bill will cost they should be able to ask how much the government costs.

Well yeah, that's exactly the kind of makes-sense-at-first-three-or-five-glances-but-is-tried-tested-and-has-been-found-too-light kind of argument for having a budget that I meant by "realism".

I don't really think that answers my point. If anything is 'too light an argument' then it was what you just said

[afleitch]

Consign this to the dustbin of history. For all our sakes.

Hear, hear!

[afleitch]

Aye.

[afleitch]

Aye