Page 918 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Whilst I thank the government and Treasury officials for making themselves available for the briefing, it must be noted that, had the bill been debated as originally scheduled, it would have given me and the other members of the opposition a mere three days to consider its ramifications and to provide critical comments. This is hardly an ideal situation for scrutinising legislation brought before the Assembly.
The consequences of such rushed legislation are apparent from the fact that the bill is to be amended by the Treasurer today to remedy a serious drafting error which was not detected until Mr Ben O’Neill in my office pointed it out to Treasury officials just days before the bill was originally scheduled to be voted on by the Assembly. Had this not been the case, it may have been the law of the land by now, warts and all.
It is this kind of sloppy work that you get when a majority government tries to rush through legislation without any real opportunity for proper scrutiny. Perhaps the government believes that with its majority it can simply dismiss any opposition as nonexistent. As the Assembly currently stands, bills will be passed with government majority regardless of the views of the opposition or the Greens. But as we have seen this rushed, unaccountable approach can lead to errors.
This is an unusual approach, one that we did not see previously during Mr Quinlan’s term as Treasurer. I think it is a reflection of the way in which things are presently being handled by the Treasurer, who is, at the end of the day, ultimately responsible for the processes of his office and the department. If this were a time-critical piece of legislation that had to be urgently implemented, then I would have been more than happy to work to a rushed time frame. However, in the circumstances I suggest this legislation was merely being forced through by the government quite simply because they can do so.
Unfortunately, my request to the Chief Minister’s Office for additional time to examine this bill and the Government Procurement Amendment Bill was dismissed in, quite frankly, a rather arrogant fashion. But as events unfolded, delays in the Assembly on 15 March meant that the debate for the bill was held over until this sitting. This has given both the government and the opposition time to reflect on the bills and to speak with affected parties in our community, and it has certainly, of course, given the government time to get its act together and correct its drafting mistakes. Hopefully, there will be a lesson learnt and we will not see this sort of approach taken on future legislation.
Now, dealing with the substance of the bill, as I said, the opposition will be supporting this bill. The bill provides appropriate mechanisms that allow the Treasurer to preserve appropriations from one financial year to the next and to provide additional funding to agencies to pay unbudgeted employee entitlements. I am pleased that the government has accepted the point that we raised during the briefing that there was an error in the drafting of clause 16A (1) (c).
This clause, as it was originally drafted, would have meant that the Treasurer was never able to authorise appropriation under the section because it provided for an additional appropriation if an employee entitlement—that is, a singular entitlement—exceeded the total amount appropriated. Obviously, this would never occur. Clearly,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .