Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2012 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1678..
MR HARGREAVES: Scrutiny report 51 contains the committee's comments on 14 bills, two pieces of subordinate legislation, four government responses, proposed government amendments to the Electoral Amendment Bill 2012 and further consideration of the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2011. The report was circulated to members when the Assembly was not sitting.
I would like to reiterate that the committee, at the request of the public accounts committee, gave some further consideration to the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2011. I would again bring that to the attention of members. I commend the report to the Assembly.
Leave of absence
Motion (by Mr Smyth) agreed to:
That leave of absence be granted to Mrs Dunne for this sitting week for family reasons.
Public Accounts—Standing Committee
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (12.02): I present the following report:
Public Accounts—Standing Committee—Report 21—Inquiry into Appropriation Bill 2011-2012 (No 2), dated 24 April 2012, together with a copy of the extracts of the relevant minutes of proceedings.
That the report be noted.
I will speak only very briefly on this because I managed to leave my embargoed copy of the report upstairs. The report deals with the additional appropriation bill. It is a matter of $18 million. On the basis of that sum being fairly small within the context of the ACT government's total expenditure, the committee did not deal with any macroeconomic issues. We simply concerned ourselves with the expenditures encompassed in the appropriation bill rather than what it did to the ACT government's fiscal position as a whole.
There are three expenditures. Firstly, and this is where basically all the money goes, there is a new enterprise agreement for ACT government staff. This is more money than the government originally budgeted for. That is the $18 million, and clearly this is something the committee supported.
The other two expenditures, the hydrotherapy pool and Ashley Drive, are in fact, as I understand it, just re-profiling of an expenditure of moneys which had already been allocated for expenditure but were not going to be expended in this way. So there was no additional expenditure. There was just different expenditure. The committee had