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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2630 ..

The bill will ensure that the Treasurer’s advance can be used only for situations where the territory either has to make a relevant payment in a financial year, or where there is an obligation—that is, a firm commitment—in place that requires payments to be made.

I should note at this point that the consideration we are now giving to section 18 indicates that there is merit in reviewing the financial model that is implicit within the Financial Management Act. That is something that the former Auditor-General strongly suggested should happen. Undertaking such a review would be better because, for example, of the way in which we have had to consider the concept of when funds are considered to have been expended.

I have had some concerns about the nature of the reporting requirements relating to the use of the Treasurer’s advance. I am therefore pleased to see the removal of the requirement, set out in the original subsection 2 of section 18, for details of all authorisations to be included in appropriation bills prepared for the first such bill each year. This will reduce the workload associated with the preparation of subsequent appropriation bills, and therefore enhance their comprehension.

If the Assembly supports the government’s bill, then the bill proposed by Ms Dundas will effectively become redundant. This should not necessarily be seen as a bad outcome. On the contrary, much of the impetus that has led to the bill we are discussing has been generated as a result of Ms Dundas’s bill and for that she is to be congratulated. Moreover, many of the elements that are included in Ms Dundas’s bill have been incorporated into the government’s bill, and those that have not been included have been excluded on sound grounds.

There is one matter, however, that has been raised by Ms Dundas, and by the government’s bill, that warrants some comment and it concerns the definition of the word “urgent”. We agree with the approach adopted in the bill in that the interpretation of what constitutes “urgent” should be prescribed by guidelines. To this end, however, we await with interest the government’s final guideline on the matter, as it will be important that what is considered as urgent achieves the right balance between establishing the need for the funds and ensuring there is appropriate use of the Treasurer’s advance.

I should note that we have advised the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office of a minor error in the drafting, in the heading of what will be the new section 18A, and we believe this will be rectified in the final version.

We have had a situation in which the use of the Treasurer’s advance has been subject to less scrutiny than should be the case with the use of public funds. This lack of transparency had led to some of the unfortunate situations that have arisen, situations that could and should have been avoided if there had been an appropriate degree of accountability and responsibility. It is rare that I say this, but I concur with the Treasurer when he said that the government’s bill should clarify the provisions dealing with the Treasurer’s advance, and I trust that our experience with these new provisions is satisfactory. Mr Speaker, we will be supporting the government’s bill.

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