Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2136 ..
MR MOORE
(continuing):one goal of the Canberra Hospital and the number one goal of me as minister and of this government to get the best possible patient care, and that is what we will continue to pursue.
MR QUINLAN: My question is to the Chief Minister. My question relates to the Bruce Stadium and is asked in anticipation of the Auditor-General's report on the redevelopment. I just want to be quite clear on something. In the 1997-98 financial year some $9.7 million was expended without prior appropriation. We can play silly games in relation to the legality of the payments, given the much later issue of retrospective guidelines under the Financial Management Act, but I would like to understand the forward approval process for those payments.
Was the decision that those payments be made, made by a public servant; if so, by whom? Was the decision made by a minister-if so, by whom-or was the decision one of the whole of government, say, through cabinet? I guess the latter part of the question is optional, given that it relates directly to cabinet. Are you prepared to advise this Assembly whether cabinet received any briefing, written or oral, on deficiencies in appropriations before any payments were made or before the curious overnight loan was undertaken?
MS CARNELL
: Mr Speaker, that was really a quite convoluted question with regard to this matter, which would usually make it the sort of question you would not necessarily ask in question time, but I will attempt to answer it.I suppose the question is whether, with regard to that transaction, anyone has acted improperly or illegally. When cabinet authorises a transaction, and that does answer your question, it is entitled to assume that those charged with effecting that transaction do so in accordance with the requirements and processes of the law. Cabinet was entitled to believe that its directions in relation to Bruce Stadium were given effect to lawfully. Unfortunately, those charged with effecting the transaction that Mr Quinlan asked about slipped up; it is that simple. They relied upon practice, rather than the strict letter of the law.
I do not believe that the actions were motivated by any improper or unlawful motive. The people concerned acted as they had always done, believing that they did so within the outlines of the law. It is granted that the normally high standards of administration and process control achieved by the department were not met in this circumstance. However, it is not so much that the officers acted without diligence or improperly; it is just that they acted using longstanding practices. Ultimately, those longstanding practices had dubious legal value.
Mr Speaker, the issue here is that the transaction that was carried out needed to have a guideline in place. The person involved, who had done transactions like this before, believed that it was in place, did not check and should have checked; it was that simple. That is exactly what happened.
Mr Quinlan asked who did it. A middle-range public servant who does these sorts of transactions every day and whose name I will not mention in this place, Mr Speaker, nor would I ever. We have an Auditor-General who is looking at this whole issue. We have made it clear that cabinet did authorise a transaction and cabinet had every right to believe that it would be carried out within the letter of the law. The reality is that the administration of that particular action was not done appropriately.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .