APPROPRIATION BILL
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL
APPROPRIATION (SPECIAL OFFICES) BILL
APPROPRIATION (1997-98 BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT (TRANSMISSION OPERATOR’S LEVY) BILL
PREMIUM PROPERTY TAX BILL
PUBLIC FINANCE AND AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL
STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.56 p.m.]: I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.56 p.m.]: The coalition will not oppose this package of legislation because it provides for the appropriation of moneys for the Government to undertake its operations in the community. The House has engaged in an extensive debate on the budget papers. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of this House, it is not appropriate for honourable members to pursue a detailed debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills. The budget debate will take place in this House during the normal take-note debate. However, I wish to bring one issue to the attention of the House. I refer to the estimates committee relating to the Attorney General’s portfolio, which was conducted on 22 June. During the hearing an answer was given that I had never heard. I asked the Attorney General a series of questions about certain figures that related to the capital works appropriation. As can be seen on pages 203 and 204 of the Hansard proof of the estimates committee hearing, he said in response to one question:
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Generally these figures have been compiled within the Treasury and they do not always accord with the estimate that my department has put forward but I am informed that the total cost of that project is estimated at $5.439 million. It is expected that the contract will be let in the 1998-1999 financial year with expenditure of $4.5 million in that year.
I then asked:
Page 6916
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: So those figures are wrong as well?
I repeatedly asked the Attorney General that question and he responded, "Yes". Finally, in answer to a question the Attorney General said, "I will ask Mr Glanfield to answer that." Mr Glanfield is the head of the department. What did Mr Glanfield say about the capital works budget allocation for his department? He said:
Can I indicate in relation to this whole schedule that the figures that we provided to the Treasury are not reflected in that page. Each of these items you identify, we had a similar difficulty with. In relation to the costs of the projects though, the figures identified last year are the correct estimates according to us.
Mr Glanfield basically said that the figures provided for last year are correct but that the figures for this year, which were not provided by the department, are incorrect. He further said:
In relation to the courts administration system, the reason for the lower than anticipated expenditure is that we have been concentrating on the form and processes and in fact it has had a slower start up than we would have liked, but we have been also looking to employ a project manager.
I then asked the Attorney General:
So again the figures contained in the budget papers are wrong?
The Attorney General replied:
That schedule, those figures, particularly in the estimated total cost and the estimated expenditure, do not accord with the figures that we provided.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: Do you mean the bids?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Attorney General basically said that he gave Treasury the necessary figures for capital works.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: But they are bids.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: No. The figures are what the department said were necessary to complete the projects. The Attorney General basically said that Treasury rewrote the figures; the department has no idea where the figures came from but they were not the figures supplied to Treasury. Basically, Mr Glanfield said in relation to the whole of the capital works budget that the figures provided to the Treasury are not reflected in that page of the budget papers. The Attorney General and his department have walked away from the budget. I have never seen that happen before and I have never heard of it happening before. Something has gone wrong in Treasury in this regard. I picked it up in the Attorney General’s portfolio; I do not know what happened in other portfolios.
It is an indictment of the Government that the Attorney General has walked away from the budget papers. As a consequence, the Committee of the Whole will receive a report stating that the committee cannot recommend the budget estimates in relation to capital works for the Attorney General’s Department until accurate figures for that department are provided to the House. The Treasurer has a look of shock on his face. I am staggered that a bureaucrat has not informed him that Treasury has made a monumental bungle in relation to this part of the budget papers at least. Therefore, whilst the Opposition does not oppose the passage of these bills, there will be extensive debate on the budget estimates and related papers. I have never seen a committee seriously question a substantial part of one Minister’s budget, and I have never heard of any member seeing that happen in their experience in the Parliament.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.04 p.m.], in reply: The matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition had not previously been drawn to my attention. However, I will inquiry into it and report to the House at the first available opportunity.
Motion agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
In Committee
Reports of General Purpose Standing Committees Nos 1 to 5 adopted.
Bills reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.