Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1797 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

docket or you spend it in a different time period from that originally approved, that is a technical breach. That explains a lot of the confusion that you may hear about New South Wales. Catching up with the impacts of introducing accrual accounting is the explanation for the problems New South Wales had. It had nothing to do with spending double the approved funds without reference to parliament. The New South Wales case is a red herring and another attempt at deception.

If you tell the world, and the parliament, that you are going to spend or commit $19m or $20m and you spend or commit $44m without the approval of the parliament, that is not a technical breach; that is misappropriation. That is what has happened. That is what has been done, purely and simply, and at every turn of this debate every person in this Assembly should remember that we were told $19m, repeatedly - $12m in cash and a $7m loan. The Government - Mrs Carnell - spent $44m without referring to us. Remember that.

The next defence concerns section 38 of the Financial Management Act. As Mrs Carnell herself concedes, it is a crucial point in her defence. Section 38 of the Financial Management Act exists to facilitate short-term, possibly mid-term, cash management. It is not there to facilitate unapproved investment and unapproved funds. Be very sceptical regarding anything you hear about guidelines being overlooked. The guidelines did not exist until the Chief Minister was caught out. They were an optional extra available under the Act, necessary only if you want to do something particularly exotic in your financial management, or to set down guidelines on how to do things. They were not intended for capital projects. Many of us will know that businesses with a large cash turnover, possibly varying in rates through time, invest on the short-term money market and in other readily negotiable instruments. Sometimes it closes overnight. It is an earner that they operate on the side of their business. That is the reason for section 38. I happened to ask the Auditor-General in estimates the following question:

In reply, the Auditor-General said:

I will repeat that: "What is section 38 for, Mr Auditor-General? Is it only for short-term cash management?". "Yes, that is my understanding". (Extension of time granted) Most of what you will hear about section 38 of the Financial Management Act in relation to this exercise is also a red herring and a further deception.

Then we had the no corruption defence. After recent events and recent revelations, nothing would surprise me; but I am yet to hear substantiated claims of brown paper parcels or other forms of direct corruption. On the other hand, the Chief Minister has a lot to gain by squeaking past this latest disaster following Kinlyside, following Feel the Power, and following the manipulation of figures during the ACTEW debate. She is the victim of her own vanity, and her actions in relation to the Bruce Stadium will not be forgotten for a long time. It is a shambles, no matter what today's outcome.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .