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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1816 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

... there is a major difference between a cock-up and a conspiracy ...

What we are seeing here is expenditure of millions of taxpayers' dollars without parliamentary approval. It is just not tenable to accept that this could be a technical hiccup. The amounts and the fundamental principles here are far too serious to be a mere hiccup. I am not suggesting that a conspiracy exists, but rather suggesting that the seriousness is significant enough to warrant the most severe of penalties.

Mr Rugendyke went on to say that he was wondering "just exactly what standard of truth we might need to establish that this motion" - he was referring to the censure motion - "should be supported - the balance of probabilities, as in a civil court, or beyond reasonable doubt, as in a criminal court". He said that was his background and that his standard of proof was beyond reasonable doubt. It is incumbent upon the Opposition to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there exists proof of the illegal acts. I hope that this has been done, and I will try to add some further weight to the proof presented.

But before that, the question is: Why not wait for the Auditor-General's report, due now in October? The answer lies in the nature of the other Bills before the Assembly. It should be noted that two of the legal advices said that the guidelines were illegal. The Appropriation Act amendments presented by the Chief Minister attempt to make those guidelines legal. Further passage of an Appropriation Bill amounts to an expression of confidence in a government, and thus the passage of this particular Bill would result in such an expression which would provide a difficulty later on when the Auditor-General's report is tabled.

The order of testing, shall we say, is for this Assembly to consider the motion of want of confidence, the Appropriation Bill with its amendments, and then any issue which may arise from the Auditor-General's report later this year. The issues should be separated because the want-of-confidence motion goes to the heart of illegal acts, the Appropriation Bill seeks to negate the illegal acts, and the Auditor-General's report shows the problem in its accounting entirety. The difference between the want-of-confidence motion and the Auditor-General's report is that the consideration of illegal acts is a matter for lawyers and courts, and consideration of the extent of financial process is for accountants and auditors. They are quite separate and not necessarily dependent on each other. The second merely exposes the extent of the problem.

Further, with regard to the illegal acts, there is only one party responsible for this. The Chief Minister must answer the accusations of illegality. However, fixing the problem will fall to whichever government is incumbent at the time. In other words, it matters not who fixes the problem. The Auditor-General will outline the extent of it, and then it must be addressed. Indeed, the Auditor-General may well expose other irregularities, but essentially he has to address why decisions were taken, were there acceptable risks, and was the process proper. In fact, he will investigate whether it was a wise thing to embark on in the first place. An Auditor-General is to advise on whether due process has been followed, not to make judgments on whether such processes were illegal. He would point out that certain legislative imperatives were acknowledged in transactions, but whether those actions were legal or not is for others to discern.

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