Page 2947 - Week 09 - Thursday, 13 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (9.17): We are on the home stretch, with only the Legislative Assembly to go; so I will be very brief. Earlier today I updated the Assembly on the quite significant project to accommodate 25 members of the Assembly beyond the ACT election on 15 October 2016. I will make no further comment on the matter, other than to say that the next Assembly will mark an exciting new chapter in the history of ACT self-government.
In relation to the specifics of the OLA budget, I express my disappointment that the Treasurer rejected the Assembly’s call for funding for a dedicated security officer. The case put to the Treasurer was well made and based on recommendations made in a recent security review undertaken for the Assembly. The case was strengthened even further by the events that occurred in the Canadian parliament last year. Indeed entering the Australian parliament, a visitor must walk past heavily armed security personnel.
It must be acknowledged that the Assembly is not a national parliament but we stand as neighbours to Australia’s national parliament. As such, we must take security seriously and take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the safety and security of the people who work in and visit the Assembly.
Further, in rejecting the Assembly’s bid for a dedicated security officer, which I, as Speaker, included in my recommended appropriation, the Treasurer failed to follow the requirements of the Financial Management Act 1966. This failure, if not in the words of the act, certainly was against the spirit of the act. Section 22A of the act requires the Treasurer to present to the Assembly an appropriation bill for the Office of the Legislative Assembly. If the appropriation is less than the Speaker’s recommended appropriation, subsection (2) requires:
Immediately after presenting the bill, the Treasurer must present to the Legislative Assembly a statement of reasons for departing from the recommended appropriation.
The Treasurer presented the OLA appropriation bill on 2 June, along with the explanatory statement. Neither the Treasurer’s presentation speech nor the explanatory statement provided any explanation of the Treasurer’s decision to appropriate less than the amount the Speaker had recommended.
I note in particular the requirements of the Financial Management Act that the statement of reasons must be provided “immediately after presenting the bill”. It was not until 4 June that the Treasurer tabled a paper giving the statement of reasons. It seemed to me the urgency and spirit of the Financial Management Act would suggest the Treasurer would stand and give an oral account of his reasons, preferably in his presentation speech for the appropriation bill. I think that that is what most people had expected would happen on this occasion.
Further, in the same bill the Treasurer gave an appropriation to the Auditor-General that was lower than the recommended appropriation. Again the Treasurer failed to articulate the reasons for the lower appropriation, though in this case the reasons were outlined in the explanatory statement. In the case of the Auditor-General’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video