❓ Mr. Wyatt questions the Treasurer about contractual commitments made by the Department of the Attorney General after a funding submission was rejected. The Treasurer defends the department's ability to reallocate existing funds.
AnsweredQoN 41Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL — CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS
41. Mr B.S. WYATT to the
Treasurer:
I refer to page 42 of the 2013–14 midyear review and
the fact that the Department of the Attorney General budget is facing pressure
due to several contractual commitments that, according to the former Under
Treasurer last week, were brought before government for consideration. The
government rejected the submission and the commitments were made regardless.
(1) Did the
Attorney General approve the entering into of these contracts after the
Treasurer rejected the funding submission?
(2) What is
the total cost of these contracts that were entered into after the government
rejected the funding decision?
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL — CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS
41. Mr B.S. WYATT to the
Treasurer:
I refer to page 42 of the 2013–14 midyear review and
the fact that the Department of the Attorney General budget is facing pressure
due to several contractual commitments that, according to the former Under
Treasurer last week, were brought before government for consideration. The
government rejected the submission and the commitments were made regardless.
(1) Did the
Attorney General approve the entering into of these contracts after the
Treasurer rejected the funding submission?
(2) What is
the total cost of these contracts that were entered into after the government
rejected the funding decision?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I read the discussion around
the issues with the Department of the Attorney General. Off the top of my head,
the additional amount that was sought was in the quantum of $12 million over
the four-year period. Our view at the time, and it probably still is, is that
we were not prepared to provide —
Mr B.S. Wyatt : Is that capital or recurrent?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I cannot remember. It was $12 million. The
government was not prepared to provide an additional appropriation over and
above that already made. If, from the department's point of view, it
was a priority, then it was open to the department to find savings from within
its expenditure limit to direct into that program, and that is what happened.
The department asked for more money and we said no. The department simply went
back and looked at its current spending profiles and clearly found money from
other areas, and the department is spending it. I suspect that would happen
often. What I am focussed on is the global spending limit. The other thing we
have to put into perspective is that if we add the total amount spent in the
Department of the Attorney General over a four-year period, my recollection
across the forward estimates is that it would be more than a couple of billion
dollars.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is not a terribly good habit, though.
The SPEAKER : Member!
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : We are looking at a $12 million ask across
a $2 billion spending program. My suggestion would be this: if the director
general of that department, working in consultation with the minister, cannot
find funding to direct into a priority area out of $2 billion of spending, then
that person probably should not be doing that job. Clearly, that has happened.
Personally, I do not have a problem with it. The department came and asked for
an additional appropriation and we said no. Clearly, it was open to the
department to go away and reprioritise existing spending, and that is what it
did.
the issues with the Department of the Attorney General. Off the top of my head,
the additional amount that was sought was in the quantum of $12 million over
the four-year period. Our view at the time, and it probably still is, is that
we were not prepared to provide —
Mr B.S. Wyatt : Is that capital or recurrent?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I cannot remember. It was $12 million. The
government was not prepared to provide an additional appropriation over and
above that already made. If, from the department's point of view, it
was a priority, then it was open to the department to find savings from within
its expenditure limit to direct into that program, and that is what happened.
The department asked for more money and we said no. The department simply went
back and looked at its current spending profiles and clearly found money from
other areas, and the department is spending it. I suspect that would happen
often. What I am focussed on is the global spending limit. The other thing we
have to put into perspective is that if we add the total amount spent in the
Department of the Attorney General over a four-year period, my recollection
across the forward estimates is that it would be more than a couple of billion
dollars.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is not a terribly good habit, though.
The SPEAKER : Member!
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : We are looking at a $12 million ask across
a $2 billion spending program. My suggestion would be this: if the director
general of that department, working in consultation with the minister, cannot
find funding to direct into a priority area out of $2 billion of spending, then
that person probably should not be doing that job. Clearly, that has happened.
Personally, I do not have a problem with it. The department came and asked for
an additional appropriation and we said no. Clearly, it was open to the
department to go away and reprioritise existing spending, and that is what it
did.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.