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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1095 ..

Ms McRae: Mr Speaker, on a further point of clarification, as a point of order: If it is an item within the current allocated education budget, then the restoration of funds is already within an allocated line in an Appropriation Bill. There is no allocated budget line to cope with an expense additional to something already appropriated for, and that is my point about difference. This has been appropriated for to actually demolish the buildings on Acton Peninsula and has already been allocated to that specific purpose. Within the education budget, may I beg to just differ, there is an amount that has been appropriated. Any change to that would require amendment to an already allocated appropriation. Here we have appropriated for and have specific funding to deal with the Acton Peninsula site; we do not have specific funding to deal with a variation to a contract that has already been let.

I am not objecting to your ruling, Mr Speaker, but it is that clarification that I need. I do understand the implications of my motion and other motions that are before the Assembly. I do also understand that there are very strict guidelines about what is appropriated for and what it is appropriate for the Government to expend. I think we may be beginning an irresponsible course in this Assembly if we are able to pass motions that do actually require extra appropriations or shifts from other appropriations like the Treasurer's Advance.

Of course, the Government can argue that there is money in other areas for unforeseen expenditure, but this is not unforeseen. This is a very deliberate move. It is outside a normal appropriation, and that is my point. My motion deals with a matter within the education portfolio; it is not asking for a new appropriation. That is my concern. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience.

Ms Horodny: Mr Speaker, can I just add to that? The actual initial appropriation for the demolition of buildings at Acton was about $8.15m. We have heard that the new appropriation is only $6m. In fact, there has been a saving of $2m.

Ms McRae: It does not matter. It has been appropriated; it has been designated. That is the point.

Mr Humphries: But that money is reallocated.

Ms McRae: That is the point; we are not free to just spend money.

Ms Horodny: Yes; but the technical point here is whether there is new money or whether it is coming out of existing money. I would argue that, because there has been a so-called saving here, this money would come out of that appropriation.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (5.27): Mr Speaker, there are a total of six contracts involved in the demolition on Acton Peninsula. All the contractors have been selected, not necessarily on the basis of the lowest price, I have to say, but on the basis of providing the best value for money. The primary consideration by the tender selection committee was that all tenders complied with the Government's policy on waste minimisation, as outlined in the no waste by 2010 strategy; the competition policy; and value for money. This has resulted in two local firms winning tenders.

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