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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1791 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The rather lame reason proffered by the Treasurer for including this amendment is that the Auditor-General expressed the view that the types of permissible investments needed to be clarified. If that is so, the Treasurer's response can only be described as pathetic.

Mr Quinlan: Who writes your stuff?

MR STEFANIAK: Simply saying that investments must protect or increase the wealth of the territory does not give the slightest guidance, Treasurer, to officials trying to comply with the FMA in terms of selecting the best balance in a portfolio. Indeed, this amendment not only fails to address the spirit of the Auditor-General's concerns, but also mocks them. The act would be better without this amendment.

Having mandated that investments of public money can only be made to increase or protect the financial wealth of the territory, the government does not follow it up with any sanctions against those who fail to comply with the act. What happens when an investment of public money is made in good faith but the market conditions change and the wealth of the territory declines? Is the government then going to come back with another amendment setting out a range of penalties according to the amount the investment returns fall short of a predetermined target? Where do you stop? Indeed, has the government broken its own proposed law already because of its poor superannuation investments?

Another example of excessive prescription is the insertions in section 38 (3) (a) and the amendment to section 56 (4) to provide for the deduction of management fees from interest received from an investment. To quote the Treasurer from another context, that is really a statement of the bleeding obvious. As we all know, it is standard business practice for management fees to be deducted from interest before paying the net return to the client, so why the need to spell out what is happening anyway?

It does, of course, make sense to tidy up the act to ensure that when functions are transferred from one department to another it is still possible to compare the budgets and reports from one year to the next. It ensures continued accountability and, clearly, the opposition supports that. It also makes sense for the proposed investment provisions to apply to territory business authorities as well as to government departments and agencies. They should be treated on a consistent basis, so the opposition also supports that.

However, Mr Speaker, the government is really becoming very pedantic and is bogging itself down in needless rules and regulations. The way it is going, if this bill is any indication, its legislation will finish up like the tax act-thousands and thousands of pages, internally contradictory and unintelligible to those who have to comply with it. The government's desire to spell out legislation in minute detail will give us a latter day version of Leviticus. No matter what an official does, he or she will inadvertently break some obscure rule and the public service will be so weighed down with petty rule and regulations that it will be immobilised.

We will not be opposing these amendments, the Treasurer will be pleased to know, and the government will just have to live with them. Do not expect us to do your job for you. However, most of the amendments in this bill are unnecessary and I look forward to the

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