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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 896 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

(3) to ensure that, by the provision of proper, independent and professional advice, the contract governing the joint venture complies with the law and any resolution of the Assembly or other pre-existing undertaking by ACTEW (for example, the jobs guarantee);

(4) to ensure that the final contract reflects all terms, conditions and agreements - and that there are no side or undisclosed agreements;

(5) to ensure the probity of the selection process for the engagement of all advisers;

(6) to take action to address all conflict of interest issues as and when they might arise; and

(7) to ensure a clear audit trail.

First of all, a person has been identified by ACTEW Corporation as the person who would conduct the job of probity auditor. However, I see that the motion entrusts the Treasurer with the task of appointing an auditor. So I will examine whether that person is an appropriate person and appoint that person immediately, given that the process of proceeding with this joint venture starts tomorrow. Therefore, I propose that the motion should say that the appointment should take place tomorrow.

There are a couple of points in the motion which I think need to be modified. First of all, principles 1 and 2 of Mr Quinlan's motion refer to the process of direct negotiations with the Australian Gas Light Co. Their aim is to ensure that the processes taken in the past are defensible and objective. Principle 2 aims to minimise the liability that might arise out of the conduct of the selection process - a process which has taken place in the past. How can a probity auditor find out what has happened in the past in such a way as to be able to audit the process?

Mr Quinlan: They do every day.

MR HUMPHRIES: For financial transactions, yes, but to assess the probity of what negotiations have taken place in the past, for example, would necessitate asking the various players to come back into a room to re-enact what was said in a room as discussions were taking place between those particular players.

I think it is misguided to expect that somehow the probity auditor can reconstruct the processes gone on up until this point. He can certainly check the figures and the processes that have been put down on paper. You would expect that to be the case. He can certainly check the things that have been reduced to writing, but to otherwise go over the processes as if he were involved from the beginning rather than from this point in time would be pretty hard to accept.

Principle 6 is a problem in that it suggests a role of the probity auditor should be to maximise outcomes for the Australian Capital Territory. The auditor's job is to sit over the shoulders of the people conducting the particular exercise - in this case, negotiations over a joint venture - and determine whether or not they are behaving in an appropriate

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