Page 919 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the intention was for an additional appropriation for accrued employee entitlements to be made when total employee entitlements for the year exceed the total appropriation for employee entitlements. I had planned to move an amendment to rectify this error, but I am pleased that the government has acted on the suggestion we put forward and presented this amended bill.
As I have already stated, this drafting error further highlights the need for adequate time for bills and, as I have indicated, this has always been the case. Indeed, there was some legislation that Mr Corbell brought in when we last sat, and because of significant changes he respected the fact that members should have several weeks to consider legislation unless there is some absolute imperative for rushing it through the Assembly.
This bill allows the Treasurer to authorise appropriation of money to roll over to the next financial year where money has been appropriated but not disbursed to an agency in a financial year. As amended, it also allows the Treasurer to authorise appropriation of money to an agency if an agency is required to pay an employee entitlement in a financial year and the amount of the total employee entitlements exceeds the amount appropriated for the entity in relation to employee entitlements for that financial year.
One concern that I do hold is that, although the Treasurer suggested in his presentation speech that the additional appropriation for employee entitlements is required for unbudgeted abnormally high levels of entitlements due to unanticipated resignations, which would trigger payouts for accrued leave, there is, in fact, nothing in the bill that requires that there be an abnormally high number of resignations or an abnormally high level of entitlement. This bill allows new appropriation wherever the agency is required to pay employee entitlements that exceed the appropriations, regardless of the reason.
Although the opposition does support this bill and believes that the Treasurer should be able to make appropriations to ensure that agencies can meet their employee entitlements, we also strongly believe that agencies should adhere to strict recruiting guidelines and maintain staffing levels to the predetermined levels. I was assured in my briefing with officials that strict recruiting guidelines are in place, but given this government’s propensity for public sector expansion I wish to place on the record my concern that the discretionary power to make additional appropriations is not used for unfettered expansion of the public service.
The opposition believes that this legislation is part of the government’s larger plan to minimise the cash balances of agencies and generally improve efficiency and expenditure across government. I do remain somewhat sceptical of the government’s ability to achieve this. Since its election in 2001, the motto of those opposite has been to spend, spend and spend. This practice, of course, drove Mr Stanhope’s predecessor as Treasurer into an early retirement onto the bowling greens of Canberra, which he seemed to be enjoying when I saw him the other day.
Given Mr Stanhope’s recent conversion to the realities of economic management, we certainly will wait with bated breath and a protective hand over our wallets and purses to see if the Treasurer and the government he leads can, in fact, stick to this policy or whether the people of Canberra will face further increases in ACT government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .