Page 4671 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These amendments pick up concerns raised by Ms Follett on the previous day on which this matter was debated. Ms Follett was concerned about the possibility that a term in a contract to which the Government was a party would provide for the payment of interest and that interest would be running both on that contract and under the terms of this Act. I have, therefore, provided in the first of these amendments that a term in a contract to which this Act applies, which will be a contract for less than $10,000 for goods or services provided to the Government, that proposes to exclude the operations of the Act is void - that is fairly obvious - and one that provides for the payment of interest on an unpaid account that has been rendered under the contract is also void. That means, in effect, that this Bill's provisions will apply, irrespective of what other contract arrangements might be made.
The second amendment deals with the question of payment from the trust account. The Chief Minister, in her remarks, referred to the trust fund. I assume that she meant "trust account and trust fund". I pick that up by indicating that the moneys payable pursuant to this Act are payable out of trust accounts and trust funds operated by or under an ACT enactment as well as straight from Consolidated Revenue. Madam Speaker, I think that these amendments strengthen the Act and make the provisions applicable across the board to all those who deal with the Government and its agencies. They provide an effective way of making dealings with the Government fair and on the same footing as those that governments have to engage in when they deal with other people or those that citizens engage in when they deal one with another.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.48): I would say at the outset that, whilst the amendments which Mr Humphries has just moved pick up some of the technical difficulties that existed with the original Bill, I still consider that the Bill itself contains more fundamental problems. When I spoke on this Bill when debate resumed on 24 August, I stressed that the Government actually shares Mr Humphries's concern. We understand that the late payment of accounts does have the potential to adversely affect local businesses. We also believe that the Government, through its agencies and departments, ought to pay its bills on time. I also know that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is what happens. Even when Mr Humphries first introduced this matter, he was able to point to only a tiny handful of cases where bills had been paid late. My recollection is that the majority of them were to do with the former health arrangements. As Mr Humphries and other members know, the Department of Health has now been brought into the central financial management arena. I believe that that will be of assistance in helping them to ensure that they pay their bills on time as well.
Madam Speaker, the last time I spoke, I explained that, in recognition of our responsibilities to the local business community, the Government has instructed agencies - I stress that these are legally enforceable Treasury directions - to ensure that all accounts are paid by the due date. During that debate, Mr Humphries stated that Treasury "directives", as he called them, do not carry the force of law. That was a key plank in his argument for this legislation. As a point of clarification, I would like to stress that my reference was to Treasury "directions". I think Mr Humphries has confused Treasury directions with Treasury directives. As far as I am aware, the term that he used has no specific meaning at all. On the other hand, Treasury directions have a particular definition
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .