Certainly that's not something that they...or was common practice. Seventy percent of their previous spending was obtained through supplementary estimates, so it's not unusual in a meeting of this type to consider supplementary estimates. I would imagine, especially since there was a majority government at the time, it would have been no problem to achieve those estimates.
But instead a meeting is held, not documented, that seeks a legal opinion--clearly the ultimate decision is going to be a very deliberate one if a legal opinion is involved--that decides to kick the expenditure into a following year.
The way estimates are done clearly conceals that type of critical information from Parliament. Is that safe to say?