Page 357 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
see what is the underlying reason for the management deficiency, and we will take whatever steps are necessary, including, if required, undertaking some training of some of our staff if we believe that that is the solution to the problem. To try to link my comment to a remark made by the Auditor-General outside his report on the one hand, and to the matters that he raises in his report on the other, I think is some sort of a funny, cute trick on Mr Connolly's part.
Public Accounts Committee
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to Ms Follett, in her role as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the Auditor-General's report has been forwarded. I ask Ms Follett whether, in view of the fact that the Auditor-General's report covers practically six months of her administration, she will consider withdrawing from the chair for that part of the inquiry into the Auditor-General's report; and whether, in any case, she will disqualify herself, in view of her reported comments in the article referred to by Mr Connolly on 16 February 1991, when she said that the findings of the previous Estimates Committee backed up the report and, "There's no point in trying to wriggle out of it". Mr Speaker, I ask Ms Follett whether, in view of her determinative statement on her position in relation to the report, she is now disqualified from chairing the committee in respect of the Auditor-General's report.
MS FOLLETT: My answer is no.
Auditor-General's Report
MS FOLLETT: My question is to Mr Kaine. It relates again to the Auditor-General's report. I ask you, Mr Kaine: What action have you taken against those senior public servants, two of whom have been named in the Canberra Times, who have openly criticised the Auditor-General's report?
MR KAINE: I have not taken any action at all in connection with those officers. You see, there is a distinction here, Mr Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition fails to make. Since she clearly does not see that she is in a position of conflict of interest, I can understand why she does not see the distinction. An Auditor-General's report has been presented to this Assembly, and that is a matter for this Assembly and this Government to deal with.
There are matters that have been dealt with by the Auditor-General publicly, which are another matter altogether. I believe that, if any official criticises an officer of the ACT Government Service outside of his area of responsibility, that is, in the public arena, then that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .