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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1555 ..

contract. Up until then there might be an intention, but it might not happen. After the contract is entered into, under accrual accounting the money is accounted for and is spent. The Auditor-General thought the use of the word “obligation” was a bit vague.

If the government is committed to spending money on such and such an item, that could be taken as an obligation, but whether the government followed through on that is another question. The committee tightened up the definition of “expenditure” so as not to put the government in the embarrassing position of having entered into an obligation. Under Ms Dundas’s amendments, because the money was not paid over before 30 June it would have to come back, which would lead to some complications both in fulfilling contracts and in the accrual accounting techniques.

The committee tightened up the definition of “expenditure”, which means that if a contract has not been entered into by 30 June the money is not considered to be expended and, therefore, should be returned. That is the bottom line. This then leads on to recommendation 2, paragraph (d), which states:

provide for the return of ‘unspent’ funds to the Territory’s Banking Account by 30 June each year;

Paragraph (e)—this is the Treasurer’s own suggestion and he should be commended for it—states:

provide that Treasurer’s Advance authorisations be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within 3 sitting days of issue—

we thought that was very reasonable—

and that this information be presented cumulatively, with a summary of total expenditures tabled at 30 June each year.

We look forward to seeing the recommendations of the committee in the Treasurer’s own amendments. Given that they are, in the main, his amendments, and some that already exist around the country, we do not think that will be too difficult. We look forward to seeing the amendments quite quickly. Recommendation 3 is something that the committee has recommended before. Recommendation 3 states:

The Government develop regulations as a matter of priority, for the use of the Treasurer’s Advance.

Governments will always want guidelines. I think assemblies and legislatures will always want something a little tougher; hence the use of regulations which, of course, are disallowable by the House. We have made this recommendation in previous reports. I think the Treasurer might have a different view. We hope the Treasurer will take this on board.

During the inquiry we heard from the Treasurer. He revealed that the government had sought legal advice as to whether or not it would be appropriate to use the Treasurer’s Advance while the committee was looking at the Appropriation Bill. This has arisen from the government’s perceived need to have additional funding for child protection. The legal advice is contained in the report at appendix D. The advice concludes that it is

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