Page 1954 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Auditor-General found that no law had been broken in the use of the severance pay provisions. In fact Mr Cornwell had asserted that he was not aware that he would be entitled to a considerable severance payment. However, the Auditor-General found that "some doubt arose as to the appropriateness of the severance payment". The Public Accounts Committee did accept the explanation of Mr Cornwell and his former employer, but did so with regret. I also note the fact that Mr Cornwell has made arrangements regarding the repayment of the $6,400, and that is still occurring.
Madam Speaker, I might say from both a philosophical and an historical perspective that trade unions have fought hard to win severance pay conditions. Severance pay never has been a lurk or a perk for many ordinary men and women who happened to lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Severance pay is there to alleviate the misery of an individual tragically losing their job through no fault of their own. It helps them somewhat to carry on in the short term with their financial commitments, such as mortgage repayments, food, energy costs and clothing. We would all do well to remember this. In fact, Madam Speaker, severance pay and other moneys owing to employees for work performed or for longevity of service are such an important aspect of their ability to support themselves that both the ACT and the Federal governments have recognised this by amending laws recently, so that the Taxation Office or other creditors do not receive higher priority in the case of company failure.
I would hope that in the future, if an incorrect payment or overpayment by the Government occurs, members of both parties will not use it to score cheap political points. I believe that this is even more the case when, say, an ACTEW worker - I hope that you are listening to this - a bus driver or an ambulance officer is paid an allowance which had incorrectly been determined by a senior level officer in a personnel section.
Mrs Carnell: Yes, you listen, about ambulance officers.
MRS GRASSBY: Yes. I just hope that you realise this. Madam Speaker, I believe that the review proposed by the Chief Minister's Department of the day-to-day administration of the LA(MS) Act is appropriate in these circumstances.
Madam Speaker, report No. 2 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts also deals with other significant matters. Some of these are applicable across all agencies. In the area of financial management, I would like to draw attention to the recognition by the committee of the improved accuracy and reliability of the financial statements. The Government has invested considerable sums in improved financial management systems over the past few years and the benefits are now starting to pay off. The committee noted that even during the last two financial years, that is 1990-91 and 1991-92, there had been a considerable improvement in the timeliness of the financial statements and audited financial statements. Importantly, all but two agencies out of 24 achieved a 31 December reporting date for 1991-92, compared to eight in 1990-91. Furthermore, 11 agencies had achieved the target of the 30 September reporting date in 1991-92, compared to only four in 1990-91. Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General concluded in his report that there had indeed been a major improvement over recent times in financial management within the ACT Government Service and pointed to a need to vigorously pursue the training and systems currently under way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .