Page 2236 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
entirely clear that proper safeguards exist in this area. The government has reported that it is currently reviewing the code of conduct for the board members of the authority. They have reported receiving assurances from board members on this issue, but this begs the question as to why those assurances were being sought. The Liberal Party look forward to this review. We are keen to see that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that board members of the authority are not able to use confidential information inappropriately.
But another important issue emerged regarding the Long Service Leave Authority. In reply to a question on notice, the Minister for Industrial Relations reported that at the end of the 2006-07 financial year the authority held $72 million for long service leave for the building and construction industry. He reported that the authority had an actuarial liability of $40.1 million, leaving an excess of approximately $30 million. The actual figure is $31.9 million, to be precise. From the minister’s figures, it is clear that the authority is still holding funds far in excess of the amount needed to meet the long service legal liabilities in this industry. This should give the government cause for concern and cause to review the contribution levels made to the authority by employers in this industry. I urge the Chief Minister and the Minister for Industrial Relations to consider that in the context of the forward program for this year.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (5.49): The Chief Minister’s Department is a relatively small department but it does set the course for the government. It is especially true for this government because the Chief Minister has got a finger in every pie. Unfortunately, at the moment the Chief Minister is setting the wrong course.
The Chief Minister’s Department has generally had increases in its allocation, except for business and industry development, which has had its budget cut by $2.8 million for government payments for outputs, and $4.5 million. This is indicative of the wrong priorities being followed by the Chief Minister.
According to the budget, the priorities of the Chief Minister’s Department include: continuing to lead and oversee whole-of-government reform implementation; facilitating the delivery of key policy and priority initiatives across government, including a focus on housing affordability implementation, water security, land supply policy and skill shortages; leading the government’s participation in the Council of Australian Governments’ national reform agenda; building capacity and change management for the ACT public service; supporting strategic business and industry development in the ACT and region; delivering the government’s key priorities for the arts; and delivering a program of significant public events.
The jury is still very much out on the whole-of-government reform implementation. On page 53 of budget paper No 3, the government claims to have achieved $52 million in agency and whole-of-government savings from the measures it introduced last year. However, this budget forecasts that expenditure will grow by 5.8 per cent, more than the CPI, and even more than the very controversial wage price index. Much of that will be due to increases in staffing. Indeed, I note that staffing in the Chief Minister’s Department will increase from 124 to 146, despite the cuts to business and industry development.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .