Page 2519 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(2) Names cannot be released as a result of the Federal Privacy Act.
(3) The four staff were full time members of my staff.
(4) I can only comment on my own office.
(5) The President of the Labor Party was not employed by my office during the period covered by the Auditor General’s report.
(6) Of the four staff members from my office, one had left the Assembly, and three were still under my employ.
Staff still under my employ
In July 2009, staff still under my employ were immediately asked to submit leave forms for the leave taken. The amount of leave ranged from 3 to 4.39 days, with the financial equivalents ranging from $56.02 to $403.13. The outstanding leave forms were submitted to Shared Services in July/August 2009. This resulted in leave credits being corrected and salary adjustments being made by Shared Services. In one case, a salary adjustment of $56.02 was not correctly processed by Shared Services. This error was not identified until April 2012. The matter is currently being finalised.
Staff who had left the Legislative Assembly
A staff member who had left the Assembly incorrectly received a benefit of $45.50 (7% LAMS allowance on 2 days personal leave). Recovery of this amount is currently underway.
Legislative Assembly—members’ staff timesheets
(Question No 2206)
Mr Coe asked the Deputy Chief Minister, upon notice, on 29 March 2012:
(1) In relation to page 6 of the Auditor-General’s Administration of employment issues for staff of Members of the Legislative Assembly performance audit report which noted that “... for the period from 1 July 2007 to 18 February 2009, Minister’s staff recorded 39 days leave in their timesheets that were not deducted from their leave balances held by the Shared Services Centre. Given the high rate of non-compliance, there are higher risks of irregularity. The failure to account for leave taken amounts to obtaining a benefit to which the employee is not entitled”, how many staff in the Minister’s office received a benefit to which they were not entitled.
(2) Which staff received a benefit to which they were not entitled.
(3) What was the position and level of these staff.
(4) In whose office were staff obtaining benefits to which they weren’t entitled from.
(5) Did the President of the Labor Party receive a benefit to which he was not entitled.
(6) Was any action taken to recover money in relation to this issue; if so, (a) when did this occur and (b) what was the result of this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video