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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4376 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

I return to the theme of my previous speech. This is really just another way of freeing up money in the Treasurer's Advance to increase the amount of money that is available for OFM and the Treasurer to shuffle around at their will to cover up Mrs Carnell's health budget blow-out or whatever else. We have had a series of amendments to date, of which this is one, whose sole real purpose is to increase the flexibility of the accounts to allow money to be shuffled from one purpose to another. On this occasion, instead of using the Treasurer's Advance for these extra amounts of money we get from the Commonwealth, we will be able to siphon them straight through, which means that there will be more money in the Treasurer's Advance. That is what it is about. Mrs Carnell is still stinging from her second Appropriation Bill. She and her officials from OFM are still trying to find ways to avoid ever again having to crawl back to this Assembly and ask for a second appropriation because she blew her budget. That is what this is really about.

In conclusion, I return to the substantive argument the Chief Minister put, as opposed to her secret agenda. The substantive argument does not hold water. This Assembly can pass in a week, if necessary, an appropriation for a high-profile appropriation of money if it is so obviously meritorious. Even with a short estimates process, it would not be a long process. What we did with guns we can do with $5m for disability services. I simply do not accept the merit of the Chief Minister's argument, and I caution members of the crossbenches to consider carefully giving the Chief Minister and Treasurer yet another way of circumventing the appropriation process and increasing the flexibility to spend money for purposes other than the purposes for which it was appropriated.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.17): That is exactly the point. We want to make sure that we do spend the money for the purpose for which it was appropriated. The Treasurer's Advance is appropriated for use from various parts of the budget for unforeseen circumstances, for legal bills and all those sorts of things. It is not appropriated for use for SPPs from the Commonwealth.

Mr Whitecross: It has been used for SPPs every year so far.

MRS CARNELL: The Treasurer's Advance does not have to be tabled till after the year end. Maybe those opposite would like to listen for a moment. This is about being more transparent. When we do it this way, within three days we have to table the SPP that has come in from the Commonwealth and what we are spending it on. The SPP has to be tabled in this Assembly. If it is taken out of the Treasurer's Advance, it does not have to be tabled till after the end of the year. It is that simple. Do you want something in three days or potentially in nine months? That is pretty stupid.

MS McRAE (10.18): Mrs Carnell was asked by this side to give specific examples of SPPs and how they have been used. She has avoided entirely talking about practicalities. We are dealing with hypotheticals. Mr Whitecross's argument stands. All we are doing is making it easier for the Executive to move money around. I think it is up to Mrs Carnell to give us specific examples of what she is talking about. When on earth has the Commonwealth come through with these magical dollops of money, that we have not known about, for some unspecified purpose that they have suddenly dreamt up? If we do not have those examples, we are dealing with a hypothetical situation and Mr Whitecross's argument is absolutely valid. It is simply an easier way for the Executive to move around money that has not been specifically appropriated by this Assembly.

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