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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2632 ..

Clearly, in making a budget, a large range of needs are identified. Then there is the filtering process when needs identified, but regarded as less important, become urgent or more important. Surely, there should be a capacity to deal with this. The question of urgency has to be defined in the regulations later.

I think that the government’s bill has fairly picked up the concerns that came through from the Public Accounts Committee process.

MRS CROSS (12.19): Mr Speaker, the Treasurer’s advance and its application has become an issue because of its use for housing in June 2002. In the view of the Auditor-General, as detailed in the Auditor-General’s report No 7 of 2002, this was “a misuse of the Treasurer’s Advance”, and further “its legality could also be questioned”.

This misuse of the Treasurer’s advance brought into question not only the circumstances when a Treasurer’s advance is necessary, but the very existence of the advance. This is disappointing because the Treasurer’s advance is an important instrument for dealing with the urgent need for funds. It can and has been used to fund urgent projects that require funding before it would be possible to get the funding through an appropriation bill. A perfect example of the proper use of the Treasurer’s advance was its use after the 2003 bushfires.

In discussions over these two competing pieces of legislation, two substantial issues have arisen. First, there is an issue of foreseeability and, more specifically, who should have foreseen that an expense would be incurred. For a Treasurer’s advance to be properly used, an expenditure should be unforeseen. Ms Dundas’s bill seeks to extend the list of those who might have foreseen an expenditure, beyond the Treasurer, to the responsible minister and the responsible chief executive. I believe this significantly dilutes ministerial responsibility. At the end of the day, a minister is responsible for his or her department and a Treasurer is responsible for the distribution of appropriated money. I will therefore not be supporting this aspect of Ms Dundas’s bill and will be supporting the government’s changes.

The second major issue is the return to the territory’s bank account of unused funds provided by the Treasurer’s advance. In theory, this should not occur as the Treasurer’s advance should only be for the amount required to pay for urgent expenditure. However, this does occur and really all unexpended money should be returned to the territory’s bank account. The problem with Ms Dundas’s change is that it will create an inconsistency in territory accounting as it will require cash accounting, not accrual accounting. I believe the government’s bill implicitly requires all unexpended Treasurer’s advance money to be repaid, and thus I will be supporting the government on this issue.

Mr Speaker, it is important that the government is transparent in its expenditure of government funds. Traceability is important. The government’s bill substantially improves the transparency and traceability of money distributed through use of the Treasurer’s advance. The Treasurer’s advance is an important instrument necessary to ensure that there is a mechanism to transfer funds when an urgent expenditure is required. I am pleased to see that the government’s bill does not prevent or hinder this, but rather increases the transparency and traceability of its use. Once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall be supporting the government’s bill.

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