Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1542 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

I asked for the withdrawal of this Bill because section 49 of the Audit Act is an effective, transparent and appropriate mechanism for altering a program's appropriation. Indeed, the Estimates Committee concluded that the use of the Audit Act is lawful. The appropriation is unnecessary because subsection 47(2) of the Audit Act enables government expenditure in excess of an appropriation to be charged to the Treasurer's Advance. Subsection 47(3) allows for the Treasurer's Advance to be increased by not more than 5 per cent. I am not advocating that the whole of the $14.2m should be extracted from the Treasurer's Advance, but the combination of this and section 49, and savings in the redundancy pool, means that the Government can easily scrabble together the $14.2m Mrs Carnell says she needs.

At this point, it is interesting to note Mrs Carnell's comments about why she instigated this process of a second appropriation. Mrs Carnell said that it was undesirable to use the Audit Act, that it was clumsy, inefficient and not good management. Despite these claims, and Appropriation Bill (No. 2), this is effectively what she plans to do - to transfer money from one place to another. Mrs Carnell also has cancelled $14.2m worth of capital works and now plans to spend that money on Health. This Appropriation Bill is unnecessary, Mr Speaker. It is merely a political stunt.

The Labor Party is rejecting this Bill. It is rejecting the Bill because it is unnecessary and because the implications of its successful passage are just too great. Members of this Assembly are accountable. We are all accountable to the people of the ACT. My Labor colleagues and I understand and value the notion of accountability, and it is simply not prudent for members of this place to sanction a further appropriation when we do not know whether, when, where or how the extra money will be spent. We do not know whether it will be spent on Health. We do not know whether some or all of it will be spent according to evidence given to the Estimates Committee. Mrs Carnell has changed her story so many times; she is the master of doublespeak. This Appropriation Bill (No. 2) is effectively an emergency fund for the Carnell Government. I am sure that they are gleefully rubbing their hands together at coming so close to getting a second Treasurer's Advance which can later be drawn on. It opens the way for additional spending.

I am calling on the Assembly to reject this Bill because it makes a mockery of statements by Mrs Carnell about being open and transparent with ACT finances. Mrs Carnell is asking us to give her a further $14.2m. She says that she does not need it because she can transfer the money from other appropriations. Let me indulge in some speculation - speculation which may just turn out to be reality. Mrs Carnell takes the money for Health. In this scenario, what I am saying to every member is that the Assembly can say that by passing this Bill we are giving Mrs Carnell an extra $14.2m for Health. She has frozen $14.2m for capital works, but who is to say that that money will not subsequently be called on?

Mrs Carnell started off this process last month, with a speech in which she gave no details at all on where this Health blow-out would be funded from, where the money was coming from. In the Estimates Committee, she told us that there were three areas the money could come from to offset this new appropriation: The Treasurer's Advance,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .