Page 1953 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is an indictment of management and the Government not to have put into place appropriate priority for reviewing the payment of allowances within the ACT Government Service. This is something that Mr De Domenico has brought forward on many occasions. Given the financial pressures likely to be inflicted upon the ACT Government as a result of the Grants Commission, and, of course, the Federal Labor Government's problems with its own budget, any savings of this magnitude must be acted upon, and must be acted upon quickly. Again, Mr De Domenico has made those comments on many occasions.
The Auditor-General has indicated delays in implementing fraud control policies. If all agencies have plans in place by 31 December, as it is claimed they will, a full two years will have passed since the deadline by the Auditor-General for these guidelines. Fraud control policies and practices are things that have been very much part of government at all sorts of levels - at State and Federal level - for a long time. The ACT really is lagging behind, particularly behind our Federal Government counterparts, in this area, and I certainly hope that we will see these control practices in place by 31 December this year.
The claimed savings from the ACTNET system, despite assurances from the Department of Urban Services, will, I note, be the subject of a further audit. It is a pity that only this sort of independent report is capable of providing a really accurate picture of the actual state of savings, management and financial control. The Auditor-General, in his audit of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board, noted that the fund had surplus funds and could have its contribution rate reduced from 2.25 per cent to 1.5 per cent - a change that would help the building industry and therefore produce employment. It has taken the Government three years to enact these changes and we still have not seen them. Possibly later on this evening we will see some action in this area.
Ms Ellis spoke about the area of concern in terms of Assembly members' salaries. I think Ms Ellis covered this area very well. Initially it was of great concern, but at the end of the day the committee was sure and was confident in its own mind that no laws had been broken; that in this situation the Act had been appropriately carried out and that the advice that had been given to the members involved had been taken. We were concerned that advice seems to be different when it comes from different areas. I do urge the Government to act on that particular recommendation of the committee. The overall management and financial accountability of ACT agencies has been shown to be deficient in a number of ways in this report, and I certainly urge the Government - - -
Mr Berry: Go back to page 13. I would like to hear you talk about that.
MRS CARNELL: I did. I certainly urge the Government to act upon the recommendations of this committee.
MRS GRASSBY (5.15): Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee, I thought I would add a few comments on the Auditor-General's report No. 6, particularly in relation to salaries of staff of members of the Legislative Assembly. The Auditor-General's report points to a situation where Mr Greg Cornwell, a staff member of the former Leader of the Opposition, used provisions of the Legislative Assembly (Members' Staff) Act to obtain severance pay in the week before the 1992 ACT election. I must say that it was indeed unfortunate that there was some scope for confusion in interpreting appropriate sections of the LA(MS) Act, particularly the use of severance pay conditions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .