Page 1148 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 2 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
given year and props up the budget in the process by shifting numbers from one side to another.
There are other mechanisms within the Financial Management Act 1996 that already allow the government to modestly transfer or provide appropriate funds, and it is not apparent why additional resources are required. This legislation creates another Treasurer’s advance style discretionary pool, and it is evident from the drafting and the supporting materials that the parallels between the reserve and the advance are intentional. This begs the question as to the necessity of this new power. If it is indeed an immediate or urgent need, why does the Treasurer not draw from the Treasurer’s advance? Why does capital works require its own special allocation? Will there be other areas of the budget that will also get a discretionary fund?
We have been told that this will only be used for projects which are ahead of schedule and under budget. However, our experience has taught us that this is a very rare occurrence. The government have a history of blowing budgets and time frames for their projects, and this will enable them to obscure these matters by making use of a reserve. Based on the 2018-19 budget figures, the reserve for this year would have an estimated value of nearly $290 million. It begs the question: what is the point of an annual budget if you have that sort of discretion? If projects are going poorly, or perhaps even well, there is no reason why we cannot come back into this place and agree on another appropriation. Giving this sort of discretion to the Treasurer is inappropriate. The estimated value of $290 million for 2018-19 is more than five times the size of the Treasurer’s advance, so we are not talking about an insignificant amount of taxpayers’ money. There should be a legislated explicit requirement for the reasons to be provided as to why these amounts are required.
The Labor-Greens government need to control their spending and management of taxpayers’ money far better than they are currently doing. Giving them more discretion is not going to help that cause. Canberrans already pay too much in taxes, rates, fees, fines and charges. We do not support the reckless expenditure that this government could get away with by having this sort of discretion. The Assembly has a duty to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent appropriately. At a time when there is a review taking place into the Latimer House principles, it is absolutely wrong that this Assembly is going to now bypass this place and give additional resources and additional decision-making to the government.
It concerns me greatly that this bill is being rushed through by the government and that the proposed commencement is the day after notification day. This indicates that perhaps the budget position has deteriorated since the budget review. Are we actually going to see this particular pool of money implemented for this current financial year? At the very least, this should start on 1 July. It is a significant change, and very little time has been given to allow a full consideration of its effects and implications.
To comply with the new rules, under standing orders we would have to have submitted our amendments within hours of the bill having been presented. This is absolutely impossible. We would have needed to have the bill before it was introduced for us to determine our position, consult with people, work out what possible reforms were required, go to the PCO, give instructions, allow them to draft
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video