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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 897 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

and ethical way, whether or not they are doing their duty according to their particular obligations, their fiduciary duties, their principles and in accordance with the legislation and so on. That is the role of a probity auditor.

It is not the probity auditor's role to get involved in the negotiations himself and say, "If we do this differently, we can get a better outcome. We might be able to screw them for a bit more money if we take this particular approach". That is not the role of a probity auditor, and I think principle 6 is probably not appropriate for that reason either.

Principle 5 refers to ensuring effective contract risk management arrangements are in place. I am advised that contractual clauses are generally drafted and interpreted by legal advisers, are often highly complex and technical, and assessment could require legal qualifications. We are not proposing to appoint a lawyer as a probity auditor. Obviously there would be some involvement in that process but not at the level of legal advice.

I have a slight concern with principle 7 as well. I do not believe that a probity auditor, generally, has a role in providing industrial relations advice or advice about consultation mechanisms. I think that is outside the usual role of a probity auditor. However, 8 is certainly not a problem, nor are 3 and 4. The amendments I have suggested remove those which are problems but address other things which would normally be found in the terms of reference for a probity auditor. I commend the amendments to the house.

MR QUINLAN (10.42): I have heard some flim-flam in my time, but that is getting close to the best.

Mr Humphries: That is what you have been saying all night. Apparently everything I have said tonight is flim-flam.

MR QUINLAN: Quite obviously, we do not want an audit. So we are going to appoint an auditor to do next to nothing. I for one, as an MLA, would like an expert opinion on whether the process we have followed to date can stand up to public scrutiny today, tomorrow and next week. I will take the expert's opinion and - - -

Mr Humphries: How will you know? How will the probity auditor know?

Mr Moore: You have been running the same argument all night and all day, Ted.

MR QUINLAN: No, this is now about due process. The argument that I have been running for a couple of months has been, "I don't like the way we've got it here", and I do not. I believe it should be examined. If it is examined and an independent probity auditor gives it a tick, I will happy back away. I will feel a lot more comfortable as a member of this legislature who has put this whole process in place if it has been done on a defensible basis. I would like that reassurance. I would rather think that responsible members of this place would also want that assurance.

Mr Humphries: How does he establish that what has happened in the past is appropriate?

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