Page 3534 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us not forget that for decades brigades and units have used these sorts of bank accounts; they have run these funds, they have spent these funds for the purpose of their own operations. It is a traditional volunteer-centric administrative exercise. If the government has found, on the advice of the government solicitors, that the Financial Management Act presents these sorts of technical problems, surely the answer is not to overturn what has traditionally been the way of managing these sorts of accounts but instead to legislate to firewall these brigades and units, their accounts and the management of those accounts. Surely that is the solution.
That is what the opposition have presented and provided here today with this legislation. We have put forward an instrument that will allow the minister to put in place legislation that allows the traditional management of these accounts to carry on. It certainly provides for the checks and balances needed in terms of auditor-general checks and balances; it allows those checks and balances to be exercised.
We have not been made aware—the minister has said this again today—of any concern that these accounts have been poorly managed. There has not been an epidemic of mismanagement of these accounts. Communities, brigades and units are not coming to the government or the opposition and saying, “Listen, these accounts have been poorly managed; the circumstances of 2003 were perhaps exploited to allow for silly expenditures.” We are not aware of that.
So, if those accounts have been well and truly managed in that way for a long time, why can that not continue? If there is a hurdle or one or two hurdles put in place by the Financial Management Act, why can we not legislate to allow the traditional management of these accounts to continue? The opposition say that you can, minister. We say, “You take this legislation and this will give you the opportunity to do just that and it will also allow you to do it quickly. It will allow you to move now. It will allow you to head off another five-month wait to resolve a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of volunteerism; a fundamental issue that is affecting the morale of our volunteers now when they ought to have their focus and their attentions on other, much more pressing, matters.”
It is quite disappointing that you, minister, do not seem to be able to grasp the nettle and take this instrument that the opposition are giving to you. We are giving it to you for the sake of our volunteers—not for our sake. This is not a party trick. And, while I am in that frame, I reject the minister’s claim this morning that this was some sort of knee-jerk grandstanding exercise. Minister, this is an initiative taken by the opposition on behalf of the volunteers.
The volunteers have seen our legislation. They have seen the frame and they have supported our draft legislation. I will again read out the sentence in a letter from the VBA to Renee Leon, Department of JACS, which Mr Smyth read out before lunchtime and which underlines the argument I am making here: “Why is the legislative change proposed by Pratt not being pursued by the government? This would seem to be the best option still.” That is what he says in his question, and in his statement to the Department of JACS. The VBA are asking the Department of JACS to get on with it, to resolve an issue that they are sick and tired of seeing, lingering and creating these sorts of morale problems.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .