Page 6243 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is that double-check. I cannot find that provision just at the moment. I hope that the Chief Minister, in response to this, will assure us that that is correct. It is for that reason that I am prepared to allow this to proceed. If a Minister allows money to be moved from division to division, or within a division, and the Assembly is then told how much has been moved and where, I think that is an appropriate way for us to be able to check and at the same time provide some flexibility.
I still support this provision reluctantly, I must say. It is that reluctance that inclines me to support the amendment that has been foreshadowed by Trevor Kaine, because I see that as the compromise position. My base position really is: Why do we suddenly need this flexibility; why is it that we have to do it? But I am prepared to accept that the vast majority of decisions that are made within the administration are made in good faith, and that a certain amount of flexibility for anybody dealing with money is important. Provided we actually know what is going on, that is a reasonable way to go about it.
Mr Kaine has pointed out that that 3 per cent figure will still mean some $8m in respect of one budget and $7m in respect of another. That is a considerable sum of money. Should any further flexibility be needed, then, although it is a different thing, there is the Treasurer's Advance, and I think that that is a way around it. Mr Kaine also pointed out that this 3 per cent figure is consistent with the current procedure, and therefore there is some merit in nominating 3 per cent; it is not a figure that is just picked up out of the blue. Therefore, somewhat reluctantly - for the reasons that I have given - I will support the amendment foreshadowed by Mr Kaine. But I am quite happy to support the rest of the Bill and the Bill as a whole.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.55), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members for their support of this Bill which, again, I think is an important tidying up exercise for another very important piece of legislation, the Audit Act 1989. I would like to address the amendment that Mr Kaine has foreshadowed. The proposal that is contained in the Bill actually represents a tightening of the present arrangements. I am sure that members know that the present arrangements provide for changes to be made at the discretion of the Treasurer under the Treasurer's Advance provisions.
To anybody who has kept a close eye on the reports on the Treasurer's Advance, it will have been apparent that very large sums indeed are moved from time to time under those provisions and that presently there is no effective limit on the extent to which appropriations to programs can be increased. No provision exists to allow savings achieved in one program to be applied elsewhere. So, I think that the proposed arrangement, which does set a limit of 5 per cent, actually represents a tightening up of the existing provisions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .