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

by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Stephens, move amendments (1) and (2) together on sheet 4962:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1)    Clause 11, page 8 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    A copy of a determination made under subsection (1) together with a statement of reasons for the determination must be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after being made.

        (5)    The statement of reasons required by subsection (4) must include details of the purpose, objects and expected outcomes of the expenditure.

(2)   Clause 12, page 8 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:

        (5)    A copy of a determination made under subsection (2) together with a statement of reasons for the determination must be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after being made.

        (6)    The statement of reasons required by subsection (5) must include details of the purpose, objects and expected outcomes of the expenditure.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

These amendments are framed as requests because they are to a bill which appropriates moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

As this is a bill appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government the amendment is moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate. Whether all of the purposes of expenditure now covered by this bill are actually ordinary annual services is a matter under examination by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee.

I make the Senate aware that sheet 4965 has the same amendments for Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007. My remarks with respect to this bill will apply to the next bill, so I will not repeat what I have said. These two amendments constitute another attempt by the Democrats and Labor jointly to initiate further accountability mechanisms which improve the reporting and transparency of appropriations. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 gives 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, although they are legislative instruments. The problem, if we were to initiate a disallowance provision, would be that the minister would make the 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 the provisions in these bills are non-disallowable legislative instruments is a general 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 advances 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 six 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 where they are urgent and either unforeseen 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 AMFs and for them to be laid before the Senate as well as there being 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 purposes, objects and expected outcomes would be a good start.

I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary and to the advisers present from DOFA that, if this amendment is defeated, there is nothing to stop DOFA introducing this as good practice anyway. I personally have a high respect for that department and its officers. I think this is a good additional accountability mechanism we are offering. If you are going to reject the amendment, we would like you to look at the practice anyway, because we think it would be an improvement.