Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3920 ..
MRS CARNELL (continuing):
The major message that we were getting from the Griffin Centre people was that the accommodation is substandard, that it is not big enough for all of the people in there at the moment but that they wanted to be central in Canberra. This proposal has those elements; but, as I said, there is no solid proposal yet. I understand that the developer is organising a meeting, the first of at least two meetings, at the Griffin Centre on Saturday to allow people to have input before the plan is bedded down. Ms Tucker is making the point: Do we only react to developers? Obviously, that is not the case; but I must say that, if somebody comes up with a good idea that fulfils the needs of the community in the direction that I thought this whole Assembly shared a belief in, and that is more residential accommodation in Civic and a new Griffin Centre, we are not going to be stupid enough to throw it out.
MS REILLY: In the last financial year 19 ACT executives were paid a total of $167,838 on top of their salaries in temporary accommodation allowance. At the same time the temporary accommodation allowance for a person without dependants rose from $110 per week to $265 per week and the rate for a person with, but unaccompanied by, dependants rose from $240 a week to $400 a week - a not inconsiderable amount and more than most people on unemployment benefit or the age pension would receive. Chief Minister, is it not a bit rich for the people who manage the ACT government service on generous salaries to be paid a lot of money to stay in Canberra?
MRS CARNELL: When you were in government you did exactly the same because it is part of the regulations under the Act. It is quite simple. I am not sure whether those opposite are suggesting that we do not comply with the requirements of legislation. At least one senior executive Mr Wood recruited from outside the ACT was paid the same thing.
Ms Reilly: For how long?
MRS CARNELL: I simply would not mention her name. I understand that in that particular circumstance there was also a reunion allowance to allow that particular person to go home and see her children on a regular basis. We are not having a go at that at all. It is an allowance. It is one of those things set up under the regulations under the Act. I am surprised that those opposite would suggest that we should not pay those sorts of things if they are a requirement.
MS REILLY: I ask a supplementary question. Considering the size of the amount that was paid, $167,838, why have you not imposed any limitations on the temporary accommodation allowance?
MRS CARNELL: I just answered that question, Mr Speaker. We are operating under exactly the same rules as the previous Government operated under and, as far as I know, exactly the same rules as the Federal Government operates under. Certainly, we could change the entitlements. There is no doubt that this Assembly could change the entitlements. You could do it too. But the fact is that we have not chosen to change the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .