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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4350 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

a proper job of scrutinising the budget. That is why we have circulated that particular amendment. Mr Speaker, we will be supporting this Bill in principle. As we work through those amendments, and there are plenty of them, I will be making some further comments about the respective amendments which have been proposed.

MS TUCKER (8.41): The Greens will be supporting both these pieces of legislation. Many of the amendments in the Government's original Bill are technical in nature, such as changing definitions and allowing for the correction of an error. The legislation also includes a provision in relation to unclaimed trust moneys, allowing the Territory to repay money to a trustee if a proven claim for the money is received. Mr Berry has an amendment to require details of unclaimed moneys to be published in a daily newspaper and the Gazette, and we will support this as well. It came to our attention when we were drafting a piece of legislation that the new financial Bill does not deal with the issue of trust money at all.

The only really controversial proposal in the Government's legislation is their desire to increase the 3 per cent threshold on transfers between appropriations to 5 per cent. This would mean that amounts of 5 per cent or below would not have to be referred to the Assembly. The Government's argument is that this is within generally accepted accounting practices. Mr Speaker, that might be so, but the Assembly is not a business. Accountability and transparency for taxpayers' money is essential, and parliamentary scrutiny is fundamental to that. Furthermore, I do not think this proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Financial Management Act to reinforce the primacy of the Legislative Assembly's role in the parliamentary and financial accountability process, to promote the highest standards of financial accountability to the Legislative Assembly and to the community, and to enhance transparency in budget decision-making at all levels - the Legislative Assembly, the Executive and the Public Service.

The Government has wisely backed away from this proposal and instead is amending the primary Act to keep the 3 per cent threshold, but allowing the transfer of funds to be restricted to 3 per cent, or $300,000, whichever is the greater. Mr Berry has circulated an amendment that changes the $50,000 threshold to $150,000, rather than $300,000. I must say that on this issue I favour more accountability, not less; so I will be supporting his amendment to Mrs Carnell's amendment to her legislation.

The Government, in its amendments, is also proposing to change the principal Act so that the 3 per cent threshold has to be applied only to an appropriation from where funds are reduced. I will not be supporting this amendment, for reasons I outlined earlier. I believe that the objective of this legislation is accountability, and nothing very onerous is required of the Executive if they have to transfer an amount above the 3 per cent threshold. All they have to do is table in the Assembly a copy of the direction and a statement of the reasons. This approach upholds the objectives of the legislation.

The Government is also proposing to allow closing balances in departmental bank accounts to be carried forward at the end of each financial year. We have had discussions with departmental officials about this proposal and feel reasonably comfortable that this cannot be abused. The regular reporting mechanisms should ensure that a government cannot go out on a wild election spending spree which is not out in the open until

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