Page 1356 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 13 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Public Accounts—Standing Committee
Report 5—government response
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Tourism and Events and Minister for Community Services) (10.09): For the information of members I present the following paper:
Public Accounts—Standing Committee—Report 5—Inquiry into Appropriation Bill 2013-14 (No. 2) and Appropriation (Office of the Legislative Assembly) Bill 2013-14 (No. 2)-—Government response.
I move:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented its report on the Appropriation Bill 2013-2014 (No 2) and the Appropriation (Office of the Legislative Assembly) Bill 2013-2014 (No 2) on 6 May. The government would like to thank the committee for its inquiry into these bills. The committee made 18 recommendations. The government has agreed with 12, noted four and disagreed with two.
With respect to the two recommendations that the government has disagreed with, recommendation No 5 was that the government give due consideration to whether the current location of the Infrastructure Finance and Advisory Unit within the Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate supports efficient and effective outcomes as per the desired strategic and operational infrastructure objectives.
The government considers that the unit is best placed in a central agency such as the Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate due to the nature of its work. A key role of the unit is to protect the interests of the territory in long-term commercial and financing arrangements, which is a role more closely associated with that of CMTD. The location of this unit in a central agency is consistent with practice amongst other jurisdictions in Australia.
The second recommendation that the government did not agree with related to the tabling of all financial analysis work that has been done to date concerning the capital metro project. The government has disagreed with this recommendation because financial analysis of the capital metro project is ongoing and is, by its nature, commercial-in-confidence. Enabling market access to sensitive commercial analysis has the potential to limit innovation and hinder desired price outcomes during the procurement process and could compromise the achievement of value for money for the territory.
With those two disagreements with the committee’s recommendations, we otherwise have agreed or noted the other issues that the committee has raised. I thank the committee for their examination of the bill and certainly look forward to the forthcoming debate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video