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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2252 ..

MR SMYTH

already been spent. If he is now requiring the Assembly to rubber-stamp a commitment entered into by the government for which funding was not approved, the question has to be asked: is that appropriate? Whilst the opposition does not propose to deny passage of the Appropriation Bill, there are several major criticisms which need to be made of how the Treasurer has handled it.

To begin with, I would like the Treasurer to guarantee absolutely that the payment of the clerical wage increase before the Appropriation Bill was passed is not a breach of the Financial Management Act. In paying the whole amount of the clerical wage increase last Thursday before the funds have been appropriated, are you, Treasurer, absolutely certain that you have not breached the FMA?

That raises a second question. If, since you have already made the payment, obviously from existing funds, why is this part of the appropriation deal necessary at all? If you have the money-you obviously do, because the payment has been made-why are you now asking for more? How will you use the extra funds being sought?

Third, if you said in your presentation speech that $13 million was provided in the budget for clerical wage increases, why are you seeking $19.5 million when clearly the only additional amount to be paid is $6.5 million? I mean, $19.5 million minus $13 million is $6.5 million. I am sure the Treasurer will explain and clarify these issues before we vote on the bill, and I believe members will be interested in the answers.

The Treasurer made another remark when tabling his speech-that this has been a negative opposition, and we have taken a negative approach. I think it is important to point out that that is not true. You may want to check the facts yourself, but legislation we have agreed to pass since we have been in opposition includes, this year, the Community-based Sentences (Transfer) Bill, the Duties Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Taxation (Government Business Enterprises) Bill 2002.

Last year we agreed to the second appropriation bill, the Appropriation Bill itself, the civil wrongs bill, the crimes amendment bill, the drugs of dependence bill, the Financial Management Amendment Bill, the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill, the Pharmacy Amendment Bill, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Amendment Bill, and the Workers Compensation (Acts of Terrorism) Bill.

Other opposition members have also agreed to support government legislation in their portfolios. Of course we passed Labor's budget. That is something Labor did not do for us-except in the previous government's final year. They normally voted against our budget. As I have already said, we will allow this Appropriation Bill to pass. However, we have serious criticism of the Treasurer for the most unsatisfactory way in which he has managed his portfolio in this case.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Treasurer has said nothing about what this payment achieves. What is the territory getting for the additional $19.5 million it is paying? The Treasurer could have said that the wage increase is required to retain or attract staff against competition from the Commonwealth or other state governments, but he has not said that. Nowhere does that argument appear in his speech to this Assembly urging the Assembly to support the appropriation. The Treasurer has asked the

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