Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 69 ..

MR BERRY: The Public Interest Disclosure Act. It takes specific action to ensure that the Auditor-General is recognised as the proper authority in relation to the practical operation of the Act. It also defines the role of the Ombudsman. I think, overall, the Bill can be said to be a positive move in the interests of better public scrutiny of the operations of government. This is a government that needs proper public scrutiny. Wherever that occurs, it is to be applauded.

These are the sorts of amendments which are continually under the watchful eye of oppositions, I suspect, in many parliaments. The operation of these amendments, I suspect, will be watched with a careful eye to see that they do, in fact, strengthen the legislation, as they are proposed to do. Mr Speaker, the Opposition will be supporting this legislation.

MR MOORE (5.04): Mr Speaker, recently there was some public debate about how this Assembly operates. It was raised by the retiring head of Urban Services, Mr Turner, and it is very much on the public record. The tenor of the debate was that the trouble with self-government is that people too readily jump into conflict, and so on. What that debate did not recognise - and this is what I found most surprising, coming from somebody of Mr Turner's experience - was that there is legislation like this that comes before the Assembly time after time which is good, sensible legislation, which we immediately hear the Opposition stand up and support and which the crossbenchers stand up and support because we think it is sensible legislation. We deal with about 60 per cent of the legislation in that way.

Another 20 per cent of the legislation would be negotiated, in the same way as a couple of Bills were held over earlier this morning while some negotiation occurred on them. About 20 per cent of the legislation that comes before the Assembly carries with it significant conflict. And that is healthy. That is how the Westminster system works. We have differences of opinion that are open and clear for people to see. So, rather than having the impact that I think was intended - to make members think, "Perhaps we are being much too keen to get into conflict" - just the opposite is true. It has actually reconfirmed my own view that we have a very positive style of operating within this Assembly, where conflict is often resolved in a series of ways - by a round table discussion, through committees or just through negotiation between members.

Mr Humphries, in his introductory speech to this Bill, suggested that it made some technical amendments. Certainly, they are technical amendments, but they are also particularly important in terms of the whole idea of public interest and public interest disclosure. It is my view, and I know that it is Mr Osborne's view, that this sort of legislation does not go anywhere near far enough. But every step along the way that opens up government systems is in the interests of the public, as far as I am concerned. Of particular interest is the impact it has on the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. These particular watchdogs are critical to the way our democracy works. They are critical to ensuring the protection of minorities and they are critical to ensuring accountability of government. It seems to me that these are proper authorities.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .