Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have my second reading debate speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2006-07 appropriates over $53 billion for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

Major items of expenditure include Defence - $17 billion plus; Attorney General $3 billion plus; Health and Ageing $4 billion plus. The amounts allocated to each agency and the breakdown between departmental outputs and administered expenses are set out in Schedule 1.

Section 7 empowers the Finance Minister to issue money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for departmental outputs for an agency but restricts the total.

Section 8 deals with administered items in the basic appropriation but subsection (1) limits the amount of money the Finance Minister can issue for administered items from the CRF to the lesser amount specified in Schedule 1.

Section 9 deals with the ‘reduction of appropriations on request’. Departmental appropriations do not lapse with the financial year, and they can be spent in the following year and remain available across all financial years. However amounts appropriated for departmental expenses can be subject to a reduction process. The Finance Minister can issue a determination following a request from the relevant Minister. Such a determination is a legislative instrument and is disallowable.

Section 11 allows the Finance Minister to increase, by determination, spending on departmental items to a maximum of $20million. Such determinations are legislative instruments, but are not disallowable under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 see new subsection (3)

Section 12 allows the Finance Minister to increase the total amount appropriated in Schedule 1 by up to $175 million in urgent cases where the need for additional amount was unforeseen or not provided for due to ‘erroneous omission or understatement. A determination by the Finance Minister increasing the appropriation is a legislative instrument, but not disallowable under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 new subsection 12(4)

Appropriation Bill (No.2) 2006-07 is to appropriate approximately $9.215 billion for the non-ordinary (or other) annual services of Government.

This bill provides funding for agencies to meet: expenses in relation to grants to the States under s96 of the Constitution and for payments to the NT and the ACT and local government authorities; administered expenses for new outcomes; requirements for departmental equity injections, loans and previous years’ outputs; and requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities.

The main provisions of the bill largely follow those of last year’s Appropriation. However, local government authorities are recognised in the bill for the first time.

Section 4 provide that Portfolio Budget Statements are considered as relevant extrinsic interpretational material under s15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act

Section 7 deals with the basic appropriation of funds to be paid to the States, the NT, the ACT and local government authorities. Section 7(1) limits the amount of money the Finance Minister can issue from the CRF to the lesser amount specified in Schedule 2 and the amount that the Finance Minister includes in a determination. Such determinations are not legislative instruments and thus not disallowable by Parliament. Payments to the States, NT ACT and local government authorities may only be made for the purpose of contributing to the relevant agency outcome listed in Schedule 2.

Section 8 deals with the basic appropriation of funds for administered items. S8(1) limits the amount of money the Finance Minister can issue from CRF to the lesser of the amounts specified in Schedule 2 and the amount that the Finance Minister includes in a determination. Such determinations are not disallowable instruments and thus not disallowable by Parliament under the Legislative Instruments Act. Amounts appropriated may only be made for the purpose of contributing to the relevant agency outcome listed in Schedule 2.

Section 11 provides that the responsible Minister may request the Finance Minister to make a written determination reducing the administered asset or liabilities item or other departmental item in the budget of an entity within their portfolio. The amount reduction is to be no greater than the amount requested, or where payments have already been made from the CRF, the difference between the amount appropriated to an item and the amount already paid. For entities within the Finance Minister’s portfolio, the reduction request must come from the Chief Executive of the relevant entity. Subsection 11(9) provides that a determination may be disallowed by either House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 42 of the LI Act.

Section 12 – the Finance Minister is able to increase the amount appropriated for certain items, such as equity injections, listed in Schedule 2. The maximum additional amount is $20 million. Similar provisions are contained in previous appropriation Acts. Such determinations are legislative instruments but are not disallowable under the LIA.

Section 13 allows the Finance Minister to increase the total amount appropriated in Schedule 2 by up to $215 million in urgent cases where the need for additional amounts was unforeseen or not provided for due to an ‘erroneous omission or understatement’. This is a legislative instrument but is not disallowable under the LIA.

For specific payments to States, Territories and local government authorities, the relevant portfolio minister listed in column 3 of Schedule 1 is able to determine conditions under which payments can be made - see s15. Such determinations are not legislative instruments and thus not disallowable by Parliament.

Appropriation Bill (No.5) 2005–06. Basic appropriations are provided in Part 2 of the bill. Clauses 7 & 8 provide for appropriations for departmental items and administered items respectively. Specific amounts are outlined in Schedule 1 and include additional funding to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to enable a payment of $500 million to the Murray Darling Basin Commission in 05-06; an additional $310.4 million to fund a coordinated package of measures to assist those adversely affected by Tropical Cyclone Larry.

Grants totalling $265 million are made to medical research facilities including $50 million to the Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research & the John Curtin School of Medical Research.

Clause 9 deals with a reduction of appropriations upon request and gives effect to the intention to lapse unspent departmental expenses.

For departmental appropriations they do not lapse at the end of the financial year and can be carried forward unless the Finance Minister withdraws drawing rights.

Annual administered appropriations are determined by the Finance Minister and if the amount determined is less than the original appropriation, the difference lapses.

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2005-06. Part 2 provides for basic appropriations and Clauses 7 & 8 provides for appropriations for departmental items and administered items respectively. Specific amounts are outlined in Schedule 2.

The major item of additional funding is for Dept of Transport and Regional Services to enable a total payment of $1.759b for a range of highway projects.

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2006-07 appropriates $171.6 million for recurrent and capital expenditure of the three parliamentary departments for the 2006-07 financial year.

Section 7 provides that for departmental items, the Finance Minister may issue from CRF amounts that do not exceed that listed in the Schedule to the bill, and that such funds must be used for the departmental expenses of the relevant parliamentary dept.

Section 8 deals for administered expenses and the Finance Minister may issue from the lesser of two amounts either the amount specified in the item, or the amount the Minister determines to be the administered expenses incurred by the parliamentary dept during the current year. Administered expenses are funds administered by the parliamentary department on behalf of the Commonwealth for its purposes and include grants, subsidies and benefits. In many cases administered expenses fund the delivery of goods and services by third parties.

Section 11 provides that the responsible Presiding Officer may request the Finance Minister to make a written determination reducing the administered asset or liabilities item or other departmental item in the budget of an entity within their portfolio. The amount reduction is to be no greater than the amount requested, or where payments have already been made from the CRF, the difference between the amount appropriated to an item and the amount already paid. For entities within the Finance Minister’s portfolio, the reduction request must come from the Chief Executive of the relevant entity. Subsection 11(9) provides that a determination may be disallowed by either House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 42 of the LI Act.

Section 13 - the responsible Presiding Officer will be able to increase the amount allocated to a departmental item by a max of $200 000 for each of the 3 departments.

Section 14 is similar to s13 but deals with increases in items due to unforeseen and urgent circumstances to a maximum of $300 000 for each chamber and a total of $1 million for the DPS.

I have two sets of better accountability amendments I am moving jointly with Labor.

Appropriation Bill No 1 for instance is giving the Finance Minister the discretion to increase spending on departmental items by up to $20 million, and to increase the total amount appropriated by up to $175 million, with the added sting in the tail that the Minister’s determinations are not disallowable instruments.

The problem with a disallowance provision would be that the Minister would make determinations in a non-sitting period and the money would be committed and/or expended before the Senate had the opportunity to consider a disallowance motion, but without the disallowance provision he would probably have to spend it anyway.

The fact that a number of provisions in these Bills are non-disallowable legislative instruments is a concern, but the difficulty we have is that the Finance Minister does genuinely need flexibility speed and certainty in responding rapidly to some finance needs.

Up until 1 January 2005, the Department of Finance tabled monthly statements of issues from the Advance in Parliament. The commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 altered this and the Advances are now posted on the Federal register of Legislative Instruments. They must be tabled within 6 days of registration and they are not disallowable.

As tempting as it is, making the individual determinations disallowable may try to go a bit far. AMFs are signed off by the Finance Minister’s delegate (Division Manager, Financial Reporting and Cash Management Division) where they are urgent and either unforseen or required because of erroneous omission. Often there is extreme time pressure involved in getting the money out - for example providing immediate relief after Cyclone Larry. So any perceived or actual delay or interruption in the capacity for agencies to contract or commit may cause problems in such time-pressured circumstances.

The solution is to have improved reporting of the detail of the AMFs and for them to be laid before the Senate as well as for improved descriptions on the current database. The current descriptions are limited. They are also somewhat ‘hidden’ on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Something which requires better information on the purpose, objects and expected outcomes would be a start.

If this amendment is defeated there is nothing to stop DOFA introducing this as good practice anyway.

The second accountability amendment is on a theme strongly pursued by the Democrats and Labor during the life of the Howard Government, particularly over the last two parliaments.

Since the early 1980s, the Democrats have campaigned for more controls on the misuse of taxpayer funds for government political advertising. All governments have been guilty of using taxpayers’ money for party political purposes, but under this Coalition Government, the scale and cost has escalated breathtakingly.

A notable achievement of the Democrats’ campaign occurred back in 2003 when, with Labor support, we successfully moved a Senate order to try to enforce tougher controls on government advertising. This was a notable step toward trying to enhance Australian democracy, and go some way to restoring public confidence in our institutions of government.

In a revolting display of arrogant unaccountability the Howard Government just ignored the Senate.

Disappointingly, the Coalition Government has contemptuously refused to comply with the Senate Order. It stated that the details of each advertising or public information project must be tabled in the Senate and must cover:

• the purpose and nature of the project;
• the intended recipients of the information to be communicated;
• who authorised the project;
• the manner in which it is to be carried out and by whom;
• whether the project is put out to contract;
• if so, whether such contract was let by tender;
• the estimated or contracted cost of the project;
• whether the project meets established guidelines; and
• if not, the extent of and reasons for the nonconformity.

I draw the Chamber’s attention to Appendix 1 of the Auditor-General’s Report No.12 which contains the following guidelines for government advertising.

The underlying principles governing the use of public funds for government information programs allows the public to have equal rights to access of information in relation to government policy or programs which effect their rights or entitlements.

It also allows governments to legitimately use public funds for information programs or education campaigns to explain government policies and programs to inform the public of their obligations, rights and entitlements

The guidelines are outlined as follows:

Firstly that material should be relevant to government responsibilities. In developing material to be communicated to the public it is suggested:

• That the subject matter should be directly related to the Government’s responsibilities;
• That an information strategy should be considered as a routine and integral part of policy development and program planning; and
• That no campaign should be contemplated without an identified information need by identified recipients based on appropriate market research.

Secondly, that material should be presented in an objective and fair manner. The guidelines are suggested to assist in determining whether the material communicated is presented in an explanatory, fair and objective manner. It states that:

• Information campaigns should be directed at the provision of objective, factual and explanatory information. Information should be presented in an unbiased and equitable manner;
• Information should be based on accurate, verifiable facts, carefully and precisely expressed in conformity with those facts;
• The recipient of the information should always be able to distinguish clearly and easily between facts on the one hand, and comment, opinion and analysis on the other and
• When making a comparison, the material should not mislead the recipient about the situation with which the comparison is made and it should state explicitly the basis for the comparison.

Thirdly, that material should not be liable to misrepresentation as party-political. The guidelines under this heading recommend that:

• Information campaigns should not intentionally promote, or be perceived as promoting, party-political interests;
• Material should be presented in unbiased and objective language, and in a manner free from partisan promotion of government policy and political argument;
• Material should not directly attack or scorn the views, policies or actions of others such as the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups; and that
• Information should avoid party-political slogans or images.

And lastly, it sets out guidelines to ensure that the distribution of sensitive material should be controlled.

• Care should be taken to ensure that Government advertising material is not used or reproduced by members of political parties in support of party-political activities without appropriate approval;
• All advertising material and the manner of presentation should comply with relevant law, including broadcasting, media and electoral law;
• Material should be produced and distributed in an economic and relevant manner, with due regard to accountability;
• No information campaign should be undertaken without a justifiable cost/benefit analysis. The cost of the chosen scale and methods of communicating information must be justifiable in terms of achieving the identified objective(s) for the least practicable expense; and that
• Existing purchasing/procurement policies and procedures for the tendering and commissioning of services and the employment of consultants should be followed.

We put up this amendment with Labor not as a futile gesture but as a firm statement of the sort of standards and accountability an honest Government would not hesitate to abide by. That this one does not speaks volumes.