Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4356 ..

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (9.02): Mr Speaker, I did not have the benefit of being at the round table discussion, but I understand that there were significant efforts made to reach accommodations in respect of a whole range of these matters. In principle, I am not unhappy with the application of the 3 per cent rule in relation to appropriations, although I do recognise that with smaller appropriations 3 per cent can be a much smaller amount, which may make it difficult. At the same time, one has to ensure that there is full accountability and transparency in relation to these matters. What the Government has proposed instead of the 3 per cent rule, which they had attempted to increase to 5 per cent, is a move in respect of appropriations which could lead to more than 5 per cent being appropriated to a particular appropriation. That is being done by stealth rather than - - -

Mrs Carnell: No, it is not. It is 3 per cent or $300,000.

MR BERRY: This is something that was put on the table today. This approach was never discussed at the round table. What you have put in place here is that you will be able to transfer funds at the level of 3 per cent - - -

Mrs Carnell: Or $300,000.

MR BERRY: No, no; not so much in respect of the area to which the funds are going, but 3 per cent of the possibly much larger appropriation from which the money is transferred. For example, an area within the budget which has an appropriation of, say, $10m would be entitled, under these rules, to an appropriation of $300,000; but, if it came from an area in the budget which had an appropriation of four times that amount, it would be $1.2m. That is outrageous.

Mrs Carnell: Why?

MR BERRY: Essentially, what you are trying to do is to make people in the various areas covered by the budget have the same level of accountability, not be subject to the transfer of money, which could be quite large depending on the appropriation from which it is drawn. That is very smooth and sleek, and it would mean that it would be very hard to track. My view is that this move should be resisted. It should be resisted and made to comply with the 3 per cent rule.

So far as clause 7 is concerned, and your second amendment, I will move an amendment in due course to reduce the $300,000 to $150,000. To say that the 3 per cent should apply from the exiting appropriation area is quite outrageous because the 3 per cent could mean that many millions of dollars would be transferred. In my view, that could lead to significant errors within various appropriations being covered up by the ability of the Government to transfer huge amounts of money from large appropriations to smaller ones and quite clearly breach the 3 per cent rule. It is a nice trick, but I do not buy it. The fact of the matter is that that clause will not be supported by Labor. We are dealing with clause 6 at this point, are we?

MR SPEAKER: Yes, that is right; amendment No. 1.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .