Page 4675 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Government is in a much stronger position than poor Fred Bloggs the plumber, or poor Mr Jones the printer who has provided paper to the Government for printing or whatever. They are in a much weaker position. A dispute dragging on does not matter two hoots to the Government. It probably helps its position quite nicely if it happens to be in a tight budgetary arrangement. But it does hurt that person very badly indeed.
So, what this Bill does is to provide that interest starts to run after that period of 30 or more days from the rendering of the account. If the Government has a dispute, it refuses to pay the bill and forces the person who provided the goods or services to take the matter to court to resolve it. It says, "We are not paying this bill, and that is it" or, "We are paying only part of the bill, and that is all you are getting". That puts the onus back on the supplier or the contractor to take the Government to court and sort it out. Similarly, if there is no dispute and the Government simply cannot get around to paying the bill, clearly, these provisions should apply to make interest start to run.
We certainly have had a concern, and continue to have a concern, about retrospectivity, but only where it is adverse retrospectivity. We passed legislation yesterday, which Mr Kaine talked about, which conferred beneficial retrospectivity. We were 100 per cent behind the Bill. We always are, where the result is that a citizen of the Territory benefits in some way from doing that. This is a case where that happens. Here, people who already have accounts outstanding will benefit from the operation of the Bill.
The Chief Minister claims that some definitions are vague. With great respect, they have been drafted by, I think, the same competent people who work on Government Bills. Again, I say, "Why were these matters not raised before?". As far as the definition of an administrative head is concerned, the Chief Minister should look down to subclause (2) of clause 5, where she will see that "administrative head" is defined. It means the Head of Administration, which is a position referred to in our legislation, or it means an Associate Head of Administration, which is also a position defined in our public service legislation. So, whoever has given you advice, Chief Minister, has not done a very thorough job.
Madam Speaker, this Bill is important. It is important to send a signal that we believe that the Government should live by the same standard as it expects those in the community to comply with. Mr Connolly, as consumer affairs Minister, is constantly saying to business, "You must meet your obligations. You must meet the standards that people expect. You should honour your agreements. You should pay your bills on time. You should do the right thing by your clients and customers". That means doing the right thing, as governments, by the same people when the position is reversed. That is what this Bill does.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.05): Madam Speaker, I would like to make the point, first of all, that in my criticism of Mr Humphries's sloppy legislation there was certainly no criticism implied of the legislative counsel. I am quite sure that the legislative counsel are only too well aware that they draft what they are asked to draft, warts and all. I most certainly do not hold them responsible for Mr Humphries's lapses. I am sure that the legislative counsel themselves would understand that point only too well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .