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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1790 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

1 July 1999 until the commencement of the 1999-2000 Appropriation Act. Mr Speaker, it is clear that we will not have an Appropriation Act passed by this Assembly by tonight. That means that from tomorrow we will need to be able to pay wages and do other things.

Mr Speaker, that is a valid authorisation to spend public money, but it has been nowhere near this place. It is not part of a Bill that has been passed in this place, but is a normal part of government.

Also, the Government can spend money on providing, for example, health services without a specific appropriation on the condition that it eventually gets the money back by being paid for those services. This applies to agencies that have been given a net appropriation. Mr Speaker, that comes under section 9 of the Financial Management Act.

Example No. 3: The Treasurer can increase the amount of funding passed on from the Commonwealth without having to come back to the Assembly for a new appropriation. That comes under sections 17 and 19B. That means that if the Commonwealth gives us more money than we expect we can pass it into the budget and - guess what, Mr Speaker? - spend it without an Appropriation Act. The Financial Management Act at section 38 makes it clear that the Treasurer has the power to apply public moneys in a range of investments.

There are at least 10 additional standing appropriations allowing for payments such as the repayment of loans, mid-term transfers of money within and between appropriations, refunds and, of course, act of grace payments. Act of grace payments are able to be made by me without a separate appropriation. It is beyond doubt, Mr Speaker, that the Financial Management Act provides for expenditure which is not subject to a specific Appropriation Bill.

Mr Stanhope's reliance on section 6 is inadequate because he addresses only a selective part - and a very small part, I have to say - of this issue. He attempted to use it to assert that every dollar of public expenditure requires an Appropriation Bill. I think, Mr Speaker, that that is just aimed at misleading this Assembly, rather than informing it. Mr Speaker, the decisions taken under section 38 to invest public funds in Bruce Stadium are, by definition, appropriated - that is, authorised - because they get their authority from the Financial Management Act. Mr Speaker, I think that this is a really crucial issue. The decisions taken under section 38 to invest public funds in Bruce Stadium are, by definition, appropriated - that is, authorised - because they get their authority from the Financial Management Act; just as when I signed an instrument under section 7 to ensure that public servants will be paid next week, that money was also appropriated, or shall we say authorised, under the Financial Management Act. Accordingly, no Appropriation Act was required for the transaction.

In fact, it was under the old Audit Act that a transaction involving the establishment of a loan facility of $1.5m for forestry operations within the ACT took place - a decision made by the previous Labor Government. Mr Speaker, that $1.5m that was loaned to forestry operations was not separately appropriated. It did not come near this place, Mr Speaker, nor did it have to. Therefore, using Mr Stanhope's logic, the former Labor Government spent money that was not appropriated. If you accept that every dollar has

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