Page 2590 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: The point is that I issued the challenge at the time by saying that the Government was paying its accounts late. You came back and said that the Government was paying its accounts late. You did not say that the Government was paying its bills on time where those accounts were being paid through the public account. You said that the Government accounts were being paid on time, at that time.
Ms Follett: No, I did not. I said that you had cited one instance.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is what Mr Connolly said and what Mr Berry said. Very clearly, that was what they said. It would seem to me, with great respect, Madam Speaker, that we have here a case where accounts at that time were not being paid on time.
Mr Moore: That is the 1993 report of the select committee.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is right; it was the 1993 report of the select committee. There were 11 accounts which were not subject to dispute, on the department's own admission, which were paid outside that 30-day period. I do not pretend that the problem is always at the same level of intensity. I do not pretend that every day there is the same number of outstanding accounts before this community which would give rise to concern. What I do allege is that, from time to time, this does arise as a problem. It is also quite clear that, from time to time, departments of government in the ACT have used the late payment of accounts as a way of balancing short-term cash flow problems.
The Estimates Committee last year noted that the Enfield inquiry into health finances in 1991 identified a serious problem with the late payment of outstanding accounts. That involved an outstanding amount of, I think, more than $1m that was carried over from one financial year to the next. That has certainly involved very large accounts in some cases being outstanding for considerably longer periods than 30 days.
Mr Moore: They are not caught under your legislation, though, are they, because you have a $10,000 limit?
MR HUMPHRIES: It may well be the case that that is not covered by the legislation; that is true. But we do not know what the details of those accounts are. It almost certainly involves some accounts that would be caught by the legislation. The point is that when government departments are facing that kind of challenge - and they all do from time to time - the temptation to push some bills to one side is very great. I am sure that there are Treasury directives which say that they should not do so. I think the Chief Minister talked about legislation. She did not actually cite any legislation. She talked about a Treasury directive, which, with great respect, is not legislation.
Ms Follett: It has the same force.
MR HUMPHRIES: The Chief Minister says that it has the same force. With respect, that is not true. It might have the same imperative in the minds of the public servants who administer that directive; but it is not legislation. Moreover, there is no penalty for their failing to comply with that directive, particularly if, by doing so, they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .