Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (1 April) . . Page.. 1135..
MR WOOD (continuing):
content of the identification tag and additional information to be provided to the public, as well as the contents of the reports to the chief executive. Several organisations that undertake collections have expressed interest in being consulted during the development of the regulations, so there is a deal of that activity to happen yet.
The department also intends to work with the ACT chapter of the Fundraising Institute of Australia during the consultation about the regulations and promoting changes in procedures for conducting charitable collections which will result from passing this bill.
This is an important bill. We all want to be sure that the money goes where it is intended and is used efficiently and effectively. I thank members for their support.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 12.13 to 2.30 pm.
Questions without notice
Economic white paper
MR SMYTH: My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the Canberra Times of Friday, 28 March reported:
The ACT Government has admitted its much vaunted Economic White Paper will end up costing taxpayers $600,000-(that is) $100,000 above budget.
That means the government thinks it budgeted $500,000 for the cost of the economic white paper. That was confirmed by a spokeswoman for the Treasurer, who said that "$250,000 was budgeted for the document in both the current and previous financial years."That is two years at $250,000, giving us a total cost of $500,000.
Treasurer, budget paper 3, at page 163, makes it clear that only $250,000 is allocated for the job. Who is right-your spokeswoman, who says $500,000, or the budget paper, which says $250,000?
MR QUINLAN: I do not have page 163 in front of me, but I have page 35 of BP4. Under "Changes to appropriation"it has the appropriation for 2001-02 at $250,000 and the appropriation for 2002-03 at $250,000, which added together come to $500,000. A little confusion existed in the mind of at least one member of the media because there was a rollover line that put a minus $250,000 in 2001-02 and a plus $250,000 in 2002-03. The net effect within those machinations, difficult though they might be-two lines of them-was that there was $500,000 in 2000-03. While you are asking your supplementary, I will try and find page 163.