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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1557 ..

see where this goes in the short term. Perhaps the Treasurer will enlighten us tonight whether or not he has used the TA for this purpose. This brings into focus the whole point of the inquiry and the whole point of the bill: how do you use the TA appropriately so that the government is free to govern and govern wisely when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money and, at the same time, how does the Assembly carry out its role of scrutiny in this case?

We thank the Treasurer, the new Auditor-General and Ms Dundas for appearing before the committee. We had interesting discussions. We thank the relevant jurisdictions that have given us submissions. They make quite interesting reading. The variation between the various jurisdictions, how they govern their TA and the amount of the TA that some of them get is quite extraordinary. I commend the relevant appendix to members.

I thank members of the committee, Ms Tucker and Ms MacDonald, for their efforts in getting this done quickly. In particular, I thank the secretary, Ms Mikac, for putting the report together so quickly and expeditiously so that we can table it at this hour on this day.

MS MacDONALD (5.59): In the main, I support the majority of the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I state in my dissenting report:

I dissent from the fourth recommendation of this report; that 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.

I think it important to note that the Government should be able to make use of the Treasurer’s Advance. In the event that the Government need allocate additional funding for child protection prior to the passing of the Appropriation Bill, the Treasurer’s Advance provides a necessary and convenient means to ensure that appropriate funds are provided. Without it, the government as well as child protection agencies in the ACT will have their hands tied.

Advice on request from the Auditor General illustrates that assuming additional expenditure for child protection is unforseen at the first Appropriation Act, then the use of the Treasurer’s Advance to meet that expenditure would be legal, (regardless of the existence of any Supplementary Appropriation Bill).

Subject to limitations as outlined in s18 of the Financial Management Act 1996, there is nothing which would prohibit the Treasurer from authorising an advance in circumstances where the proposed expenditure has been included in a Bill which has been tabled in the Assembly. The existence of the Supplementary Appropriation Bill in this matter is irrelevant. Providing the relevant elements in s18 have been satisfied, the Treasurer may authorise the relevant expenditure.

The process may very well be legal but it has been advised that the appropriateness of making use of the Treasurer’s Advance is up to the Assembly. I appreciate the need to adhere to the estimates process—

and I am on that estimates committee—

but at the same time understand the need to provide for flexible funding, especially for child protection. The estimates process provides for a transparent means of

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