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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Tuesday, 9 March 2004) . . Page.. 879 ..

government to respond to those comments, as well as the Public Accounts Committee, before the next annual reports would be being formulated by agencies.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed new clause 7A agreed to

Clause 8.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (11.15): I move the amendment circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 937]. Following the amendment that we have just made by inserting the new clause 7A, we have set up a process where the government must now consult with the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee may make recommendations back to the minister. But then when you get to clause 8(1), it states that the minister then “may”, in writing, issue a direction. I think it needs to be strengthened. I think we all know that the Chief Minister will always issue a direction, but in this case I think we should confirm that it will happen. If we take it with the next amendment that Ms Tucker proposes, if we do not change “may” to “must”, clause 8 (1) (a) will become ineffective because, if the minister must have regard to any recommendation received under 7A but does not have to issue a direction anyway will go through and may be negated. So what it does is strengthen this. It is something that does happen, it should happen, and by changing this to “must” we will make sure that it does happen.

MRS CROSS (11.16): Mr Smyth’s amendment to ensure that the minister provides annual report directions rather than allow the minister to choose whether he issues directions or not is essential to ensure that ministers remain responsible for their departments.

Amendment agreed to.

MS TUCKER (11.17): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 936]. I have spoken to this; it is consequential.

MS DUNDAS (11.17): As I did not speak on amendment No 1, I will speak on amendment No 2, which is consequential to amendment No 1. The Democrats support these amendments because we believe that the method proposed by Ms Tucker is a good solution where committees are consulted and they can have input into the directions, although the final decision remains with the government. So this sets up a dialogue between the committee and the government, which will help improve the quality of the directions and remind the government of committee recommendations and those of the Auditor-General at the appropriate time, and, of course, this consequential amendment makes sure that the minister has regard to those recommendations received under the consultation process between the committees and the government.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.

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