As counsel advises me, the challenge is this. You have a definition of “development assistance” that's broad, and that's fine, but it would include things like anti-money-laundering. You then have in subclause 4(1) a prohibition on a minister providing funding under that broad definition of “development assistance” unless it's focused on poverty alleviation. So if something fits within a broad definition of “development assistance”, as anti-money-laundering would, but does not have as its primary objective the reduction of poverty, it wouldn't be just that we couldn't count this as official ODA, it would be that ministers would be stopped from spending any money in that area. That's the concern that counsel is raising.
From the committee testimony, it didn't appear that this was the objective, and I appreciate that. But what I'm being advised is that the potential here is that for the first time in history the Minister of Finance, under the Financial Accountability Act, will be restricted in his general prerogative to spend money.