Mr McADAM - 2002-06-18
Can the minister update the House on the steps taken in the wake of the Auditor-General’s report in relation to the former government’s use of the Community Benefit Fund in the lead-up to the election last year?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for his question. Members would recall the February Auditor-General’s report which outlined how the former government went on somewhat of a spending spree in the months prior to the last election with funds from the Community Benefit Fund.
I am sure members – as are we on this side - would be alarmed at the fact that it was not used at all by the Country Liberal Party government in those years leading up to the election. In fact, every time we asked the question of the now member for Daly, who had responsibility for this, he said it was under review. A review we never saw the terms of reference for, or any outcome from. I table a graph. You would be familiar, Madam Speaker - they do the one day cricket scores a bit like this: run rate per over. She is a pretty slow 48 or 49 overs in the years before the election: no runs, no wickets. It was the last three months before the election I suppose, with overs 48, 49 and 50, that they opened the shoulders.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Bradman would not have matched this, the run rate of the last three overs here. They have belted them out of the park!
But, of course, to every community organisation that had a little project or a little something they wanted to do in the years 1999, 2000 and all the way to June 2001: ‘Sorry, we have no dough, the Community Benefit Fund is frozen’ …
Mr Baldwin: How much of it went to the electorate of Nhulunbuy? How much to your electorate?
Mr STIRLING: Your fault, sunshine. I would not be climbing into this debate. You said it was under review. We never saw any review, any terms of reference, any finding. Not a cracker out of that until the last couple of months before the election and, guess what? - everyone is a winner. Put your hand up, everyone is a winner. Yes, $5000 to the man at Casuarina seeking funds for whatever; $7000 to somewhere else - but not in the intervening years.
If I go back to the serious intent of this, it is the Auditor-General’s report and his findings. He reported that some organisations were in fact paid twice, and action had to be taken to recoup that. Of course, there is one instance where money was handed out to a previously defunct organisation called the Casuarina Security Association, I indicated in this House when the Auditor-General handed down his report that I would be asking the department to investigate the lack of feedback and accountability; to investigate these allocations and, importantly, check if the money was spent as allocated in that spending spree; that is, that it was spent for the purpose for which it had been given.
After my request, the department has advised that letters were sent to all organisations which had received funds not previously acquitted, asking how the money had been spent. Responses have been received from many organisations. Unfortunately, a significant amount of that something like $1.6m that went out in that three months has not been acquitted. In some cases, the money has been spent for the purpose for which it was granted, but no necessary paperwork completed at the time, or officers have changed hands. There are a number of reasons why formal acquittals have not come back.
There is another scenario, and that is that the money was not spent at all for the purposes for which it was applied for and given. The formerly defunct Casuarina Security Association, identified in the Auditor-General’s report, is one of those organisations which, it appears, has either yet to spend the money or, in fact, return it. It is important to remember that these funds were allocated for specific purposes and actual projects that were about to happen. The organisation was not told, when given the funds: ‘Here is your $7000 or $8000. Have a couple of years to think about how you might spend it’. There was a specific purpose.
This funding was paid to Casuarina Security Association a month-and-a-half before the date of the last election. Twice the department has written to the association, along with all the other organisations in the same situation, requesting a statement that the funds were spent as allocated. We are now approaching the end of this financial year, and soon it will be 12 months since this money was allocated. I put on the record that it is incumbent on all those organisations - all of those people who have received those funds - to cooperate with the department in their efforts to draw a bottom line under this. It is not the organisation’s fault. In many ways, money went everywhere in the space of three months. One year later, Racing and Gaming is still trying to get the acquittals back from that. I would urge organisations that are in this situation to - there has to be a point where ‘use or lose it’. If it is not going to be spent, do the right thing and return it.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for his question. Members would recall the February Auditor-General’s report which outlined how the former government went on somewhat of a spending spree in the months prior to the last election with funds from the Community Benefit Fund.
I am sure members – as are we on this side - would be alarmed at the fact that it was not used at all by the Country Liberal Party government in those years leading up to the election. In fact, every time we asked the question of the now member for Daly, who had responsibility for this, he said it was under review. A review we never saw the terms of reference for, or any outcome from. I table a graph. You would be familiar, Madam Speaker - they do the one day cricket scores a bit like this: run rate per over. She is a pretty slow 48 or 49 overs in the years before the election: no runs, no wickets. It was the last three months before the election I suppose, with overs 48, 49 and 50, that they opened the shoulders.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Bradman would not have matched this, the run rate of the last three overs here. They have belted them out of the park!
But, of course, to every community organisation that had a little project or a little something they wanted to do in the years 1999, 2000 and all the way to June 2001: ‘Sorry, we have no dough, the Community Benefit Fund is frozen’ …
Mr Baldwin: How much of it went to the electorate of Nhulunbuy? How much to your electorate?
Mr STIRLING: Your fault, sunshine. I would not be climbing into this debate. You said it was under review. We never saw any review, any terms of reference, any finding. Not a cracker out of that until the last couple of months before the election and, guess what? - everyone is a winner. Put your hand up, everyone is a winner. Yes, $5000 to the man at Casuarina seeking funds for whatever; $7000 to somewhere else - but not in the intervening years.
If I go back to the serious intent of this, it is the Auditor-General’s report and his findings. He reported that some organisations were in fact paid twice, and action had to be taken to recoup that. Of course, there is one instance where money was handed out to a previously defunct organisation called the Casuarina Security Association, I indicated in this House when the Auditor-General handed down his report that I would be asking the department to investigate the lack of feedback and accountability; to investigate these allocations and, importantly, check if the money was spent as allocated in that spending spree; that is, that it was spent for the purpose for which it had been given.
After my request, the department has advised that letters were sent to all organisations which had received funds not previously acquitted, asking how the money had been spent. Responses have been received from many organisations. Unfortunately, a significant amount of that something like $1.6m that went out in that three months has not been acquitted. In some cases, the money has been spent for the purpose for which it was granted, but no necessary paperwork completed at the time, or officers have changed hands. There are a number of reasons why formal acquittals have not come back.
There is another scenario, and that is that the money was not spent at all for the purposes for which it was applied for and given. The formerly defunct Casuarina Security Association, identified in the Auditor-General’s report, is one of those organisations which, it appears, has either yet to spend the money or, in fact, return it. It is important to remember that these funds were allocated for specific purposes and actual projects that were about to happen. The organisation was not told, when given the funds: ‘Here is your $7000 or $8000. Have a couple of years to think about how you might spend it’. There was a specific purpose.
This funding was paid to Casuarina Security Association a month-and-a-half before the date of the last election. Twice the department has written to the association, along with all the other organisations in the same situation, requesting a statement that the funds were spent as allocated. We are now approaching the end of this financial year, and soon it will be 12 months since this money was allocated. I put on the record that it is incumbent on all those organisations - all of those people who have received those funds - to cooperate with the department in their efforts to draw a bottom line under this. It is not the organisation’s fault. In many ways, money went everywhere in the space of three months. One year later, Racing and Gaming is still trying to get the acquittals back from that. I would urge organisations that are in this situation to - there has to be a point where ‘use or lose it’. If it is not going to be spent, do the right thing and return it.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016