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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3355 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

A third reform is to provide a trigger for additional funding for the Auditor-General should the Auditor-General take on an unplanned performance audit and find the audit cannot be conducted in a timely manner. Again, that was a lesson learned from the Bruce Stadium audit. At the Estimates Committee this year, Mr Parkinson made a comment along the lines of that particular audit having unexpectedly swallowed his resources. In any future case under this legislation the Auditor-General would be able to notify the public accounts committee of the need for additional funding. If the committee were convinced of this need, they would then notify the minister, who would then be required to visit the Treasurer's advance.

The final reform in this bill seeks to address the unnatural tension for the Auditor-General, as an employee of the government, in being expected to place the government under the strictest scrutiny. I would like to point out, Mr Speaker, that at no time am I suggesting that Mr Parkinson has compromised himself or not performed his duties properly. In fact, I think he did a tremendous job on the Bruce Stadium audit under very public and difficult circumstances.

That aside, however, I have proposed a change contained in the New South Wales act that the Auditor-General be appointed for a seven-year period with no possibility of reappointment. The Auditor-General is there to provide scrutiny at arms length from the government. A change to this regime could only assist the Auditor-General to do so.

Mr Speaker, I believe this legislation to be of good value to the territory. If enacted, it will ensure that the Auditor-General gets all the assistance needed to do the job well and in a timely manner.

Debate (on motion by Mr Smyth ) adjourned to the next sitting.

Mr Osborne , pursuant to notice, presented the bill and its explanatory memorandum.

Title read by Clerk.

MR OSBORNE (11.05): I move:

Mr Speaker, contrary to some uninformed opinions, this bill is not a punitive measure against those in our city who have made the tragic life choice of illicit drug use. Those who are addicted to intravenous drugs such as heroin are in a most precarious position. Their choice of drug-taking behaviour places their health and the general wellbeing of those around them at grave risk.

By and large, their choice is motivated not by positive life experiences but by circumstances that have made them so miserable that they care little for their welfare and the consequences of their behaviour. They are looked down upon by some sections of society because that behaviour is so destructive, because they appear threatening and because they are extremely needy yet sometimes despise genuine assistance.

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