House debates
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Bills
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012; Second Reading
10:01 am
Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Hansard source
Schedule 3 of this bill is devoted to correcting two misdescribed provisions in the Financial Framework Legislation Act 2010, which are contained in section 27a of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act that is replacing references to 'at common law and inequity' and 'at common law or inequity' with 'under the general law'. Schedule 4 relates in part to the special accounts appropriation under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This provision applies to special account appropriations which relate to either the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008 or a special account established under the Nation-building Funds Act.
Determination for such appropriations are done by way of disallowable instrument. As it stands, such a determination takes effect after the five sitting days in which the parliament can move to disallow pass. Such appropriations may be used by new government agencies once they are established. For the purpose of practicality this amendment allows the minister to prescribe a date in the instrument for which the appropriation takes effect. This allows a future date to be set which corresponds with the establishment date of a new agency. It has no material effect and serves to add clarity to the act to confirm such an instrument can come into effect at a nominated date beyond and immediately after the expiry of the disallowable instrument. At is a sensible measure.
Offsetting debt—the other key feature of schedule 4—is the provision to give the finance minister the discretionary power to offset debts owed to the Commonwealth by an individual or entity against payments owed to the same individual or entity. As it stands, Commonwealth payments must be paid in full regardless of debts owing. This new section provides a mechanism for the Commonwealth to recover debts in a cost neutral way and more efficient manner than allowed under current provisions. It is a sensible measure given the budget's vulnerability on account of this government's mismanagement and spiralling debt.
I have sought assurances from the minister, however, that this authority will not be used in a way to unreasonably disadvantage business whether big or small. For example, if a business has an arrangement in place with the ATO in relation to paying off a taxation debt, I was seeking comfort that the minister would honour such agreements. In other words, not override them but denying a business payments owed as a means of accelerated settlement of payment to the Commonwealth, because, by definition, if they sought an arrangement they have got a cash-flow problem. If this measure was used to recover the Commonwealth debt more quickly, it cuts across what has already been a decision to help that company meet its financial taxation commitment to the Commonwealth, but also not put itself in the position where it has a cash-flow problem and might face receivership or other difficulties. I do thank the minister for assurances that this measure would not lead to such eventualities.
Schedule 5 of this bill also proposes to repeal two redundant special appropriations to clean up the statute book. These include the Appropriation (Development Bank) Act 1975 and the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Act 2009.
The process of ongoing maintenance and enhancement of the Commonwealth's financial framework commenced under the coalition. We support this endeavour in principle, including the changes outlined in this bill. However, we do feel in many respects it is a missed opportunity. I have taken the opportunity during my comments to point out some of those missed opportunities, which I think are highly relevant to the Commonwealth's financial framework, and in particular that NBN example. There has been $100 billion of public works, of infrastructure projects, that have been authorised by this government, none of which have had a benefit-cost analysis and certainly none which has been published. That was despite the assurances when the infrastructure Australia was set up. When infrastructure Australia was set up, the government said that it would publically conduct benefit-cost analyses that would be released. It is another example of where promises have been broken with the most blatant and brazen examples.
No comments