Page 2589 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
getting. They were coming quite regularly. I must say that I have not had those sorts of complaints lately. Maybe part of the reason for that is that Mr Humphries's Bill has been tabled; hence the Government's attention is drawn to it; and so people are a little more on their mettle in dealing with such things. Either way, there are still those two fundamental questions that have to be answered by Mr Humphries before I would consider supporting this Bill.
MS SZUTY (12.09): I note that Mr Humphries introduced this Bill to combat the problem of the Government paying their creditors late for no good reason. At the time, Mr Humphries did cite a number of cases where late payment was made by the Government to particular creditors. He also referred to the Enfield inquiry into health finances in 1991. It was an initiative that the Estimates Committee of 1993-94 took up. We commented on it under "late payment of accounts" in our report of 1993-94, recommending that steps be taken to ensure payment of all accounts by agencies of the ACT Government, where no dispute exists, within 30 days of an invoice being rendered. I must say that, for me, "steps be taken" does not necessarily mean that we need a new piece of legislation to deal with the matter.
I think Mr Moore has covered a number of the arguments quite well. I would also like Mr Humphries, in his summing up, to provide the Assembly with more information about the scope of the existing problem. Ms Follett has referred to one particular case that she knows of; but that is all at the moment. I, like Mr Moore, have some concerns that the area of disputation is not covered in your Bill and I would like to hear your remarks on that particular issue.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.11), in reply: Madam Speaker, in closing the debate, let me say that I am happy that members on the cross benches have left those issues open and will allow themselves to be persuaded on these subjects. I believe that it is possible, and I hope to do that. First of all, may I say, Madam Speaker, that when this Bill was foreshadowed by the Opposition quite some time ago - the Bill was introduced in April - there was a challenge thrown down by the Government. The challenge was to indicate or to prove that there were any late payments of government accounts where there were no disputes concerning the payment of certain accounts.
It was asserted at the time, by both Mr Berry and Mr Connolly, that there were no cases where the Government paid accounts late for no valid reason. As a result of a number of issues that were raised, both outside and inside the Estimates Committee, that assertion was disproved. I would like to quote what I think is an extract from last year's Estimates Committee report. Minister Berry was questioned concerning the late payment of creditors of ACT Health, including suppliers of goods and services. Mr Ayling outlined the procedures for the payment of accounts in use in the system, indicating that the department used "normal trade practices". He advised that, once an invoice is certified for payment, the automated accounts system produces a cheque some 30 days later. The department confirmed on notice that, as at 30 June 1993, there were 11 accounts outstanding for more than 30 days which were not subject to any dispute. The Chief Minister said that there was one case. There were 11 cases, in fact.
Ms Follett: No. I said that Health is now under the Trust Fund.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .