Page 2865 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACTEW is trading as a government commercial body, and questions of that nature require a lot further research and consideration. Be that as it may, there is a budget capacity there - a very large expenditure item - which at times is $30m but which is not covered by the general examination, expenditure and estimates capacities of this Assembly. Of course, the Rally is looking carefully at that aspect. The Rally is very interested in when we will see a full, independent audit of the ACT Housing Trust completed and reported upon. The Grants Commission assistance sums are brought on and off the slate. Again, the Rally is interested to determine precise details in relation to some of the reasoning behind grants for the public sector that are received.
The Rally will, of course, support this divisional expenditure, but serves notice again in debate that we are still waiting for further elucidation on the precise situation of the ACT Housing Trust. We have seen ACTEW cop substantial criticism lately on issues such as the common trenching problems, perceived problems, and we are not sure yet as to the correctness of some of the submissions made to the capital works program committee's review when it was proposed by elements from private industry that there were significant problems in reaching common trenching agreements with ACTEW and that this was putting extra costs onto a number of program areas, in both the private and public sectors.
Mr Speaker, the passage of this section of the Bill should not signify to the Government that the Rally is in any way satisfied as to the level of disclosure that we want to see or the level of discussion and debate in relation to those two very large statutory authorities in the ACT.
Division agreed to.
Division 40.2, $8,826,000, agreed to.
Proposed expenditure - Government Law Office -
Division 50, $13,011,000
MR COLLAERY (4.37): I believe I will be joining with my colleague Mr Stefaniak in referring to the recommendation of the Estimates Committee concerning the Legal Aid Office. There was a recommendation of the Estimates Committee that the Legal Aid Office be changed from a statutory authority to the general mainstream of departments. I do not support that recommendation in relation to the Legal Aid Office.
I appreciate the concerns raised by the Government in its response and I endorse the Government's response on that issue. I believe the Legal Aid Office should remain separate from the mainstream for a number of reasons and other reasons that were indicated. Due to sheer pressure of work, this recommendation that was made by the Estimates Committee escaped my attention.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .