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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1556 ..

up to the Treasurer how he uses the TA and that it would be quite legal for him to use it according to the FMA. The question is: is it appropriate, when an issue has been referred by the Assembly to a committee for consideration, for the Treasurer to move in opposition to that motion? This is the nub of recommendation 4. Recommendation 4 states:

The Government should not circumvent the Estimates process by using the Treasurer’s Advance to make payments for items already included in a supplementary appropriation bill.

That was a recommendation of two-thirds of the committee. Ms MacDonald dissented from the fourth recommendation. Members will find her reasons for doing so at page 22. The dilemma is that the Assembly has set up an appropriation committee, an estimates committee, to look at expenditure of the government. The government did not like the timeframe, so it is now determining whether or not to use the Treasurer’s Advance to circumvent the Assembly’s decision. This sets a very dangerous precedent. The Assembly decides to do something, whether the government agrees with it or not. In this case the government did not agree with it, but it then uses a different technique to get the outcome it wanted but not the outcome the Assembly desired.

The question is whether or not that is a contempt—having decided to do something, the government flexes it muscles and does something else. I ask members to read pages 18 and 19 of the chapter entitled “Other matters”. This is a very dangerous precedent: the Assembly sets up a process which the government goes out of its way to avoid. I do not think that is what we are meant to do; that is certainly not the will of the Assembly. The Assembly said that the bill, which is asking for these funds, be directed to an estimates committee to determine what will happen. It behoves the government to abide by that decision, whether it likes it or not. The question is: will the government go as far as to use the TA? What would the Assembly then feel obliged to do? The ball is in the court of the Treasurer in this case.

Ms MacDonald, in her dissenting report, puts some reasoning forward as to why she thinks the government should be free to use the TA. She states:

The use of the Treasurer’s Advance is legal—

yes, that is true—

is appropriate in this matter—

The nub of the question is: is it appropriate to circumvent the process that the Assembly sets up? We will have to wait and see what the government does. The second paragraph of Ms MacDonald’s dissenting report states:

… the Treasurer’s Advance provides a necessary and convenient means to ensure that appropriate funds are provided.

I am not sure whether convenience is something that this Assembly affords. This Assembly affords scrutiny. If the Assembly determines to scrutinise something, I am not sure whether it is convenient for the government to do what it wants. I am sure we will

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