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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1554 ..

MS McRAE (4.01): The constant theme we heard from the Government was that this is an open process and that the old one was somehow secretive, underhand and done in the dead of night - as if Mrs Carnell actually knew when Ms Follett did or did not do things. It is an absolutely outrageous accusation, which has no foundation whatsoever. There was never a requirement for this particular activity of Mrs Carnell's, for bringing in a second Appropriation Bill. She said categorically in her opening statement:

The Treasurer's advance, as you know, is also available. It is stressed, however, that at this stage it is not prudent to be definitive about where the exact source of the $14.2m will be. But you can see, from underspending in capital works, underspending in the central redundancy pool, and the Treasurer's advance, there is more than enough money available between those three sources to fund the $14.2m.

That is exactly the main point, Mr Speaker. If there is more than enough money, if the money has already been appropriated, then there is absolutely no reason for a new Appropriation Bill. There were good and sound reasons for the old systems of shifting money around. The primary reason was that, if a transfer was made under the Audit Act, it was absolutely clear where the money was being taken from and where the money was being moved to, and there was no ambiguity about adding money to the bottom line. A second Appropriation Bill has exactly that intent of adding an extra appropriation.

When the Chief Minister and her officials were quizzed about this, we were told, "No; things will be frozen". Nothing was frozen at that point. Then we find - when we get back into the Assembly, after this open estimates committee process, at which we are meant to be told everything - that things have changed a little. Sure enough, a warrant had been put out to freeze the expenditure of $14.2m. So, it was not a second Appropriation Bill at all; it was an Audit Act dressed up in a different form. It is a new procedure that has no merit and no basis in need. In fact, it has gross dangers for the Assembly, which have been talked about at length today. The fact that we had to have an appropriations process and an estimates committee process, only to then find out, when we were back in the Assembly, that funds were being frozen and then shifted in the same way as under the Audit Act, does no credit to this Government.

We were told quite clearly:

Again, because we are not at the end of the financial year, and we have had our Fiscal system out of action for a number of months now, it is impossible to be more definitive than that. But I am sure that I will be required to be lots more definitive in the Estimates procedure after the budget, or after the end of the financial year. I think it is patently clear, as I have said, that more than sufficient funds are available through these numbers of different projects.

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