Page 1452 - Week 05 - Thursday, 12 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Liberal Party examined the ramifications of this Bill in some detail and, given the present management arrangements for investment of surplus moneys held from time to time in Consolidated Revenue and in other places, we became concerned about this development. We were concerned that it should be permitted to occur without proper management arrangements for our investments being put in place. We objected to the Bill and it was referred to a committee for examination. The Public Accounts Committee spent a considerable amount of time and took a great deal of evidence on the question of derivatives and on the broader question of the management of the investment of surplus ACT public funds. That varies from day to day, depending on what is held in the Consolidated Fund and elsewhere.
Having conducted that inquiry, the Public Accounts Committee made four recommendations to this Assembly, and those recommendations were not made lightly. They were made after very careful consideration and expert evidence on what derivatives were, and on the general question of the handling of moneys that, from time to time, are surplus to the requirement of the Government. We believe those recommendations to be soundly based and, as is the case with most recommendations made to the Government by committees of this Assembly and endorsed by the Assembly, I think the members of the Public Accounts Committee expected a reasonable response. In fact, there was a total rejection of the recommendations of the committee. I remind the Assembly that those recommendations were endorsed by the Assembly.
We have an interesting situation. The Government clearly values its own uninformed opinion, or the support of the advice of its Treasury officials who, one could argue, have a vested interest in having a free rein on how they deal with matters of this kind, over and above the advice that was given to it by the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly. That advice was not given without very substantial expert evidence being taken on the matter, yet the Government has rejected, outright, every recommendation that the committee made. I think that establishes a precedent and raises a question about whether the Government is prepared to listen to expert and substantive advice or whether it is not. That is a matter of some concern to me. It is a matter of concern to me as a member of the Assembly, and it is a matter of concern to me as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
I think the Government should re-evaluate its position on these matters. They have not given any substantive reason for rejecting the management arrangements that we suggested should be put in place, such as the setting up of a management board separate from the Treasury officials and at arm's length from the Government to oversee the investment of very large sums of money. It is public money, not money that should be played with by Treasury officials in some sort of gambling game. It is a very serious matter. We also made a recommendation that investment in derivatives should be set at no more than 5 per cent of the amount of money invested. That recommendation was based on very sound professional advice given to us by people who know the market very well and who know the inherent dangers and risks associated with investment in derivatives. It was not a recommendation that was made lightly, but the Government has merely set that aside as being irrelevant. I think this raises some very serious questions about where the Government is taking its advice from and the basis on which it totally rejects the advice from the committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .