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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2287 ..

In light of the minister’s response, the committee wrote to the commissioner, as the report says on page 31, seeking an explanation as to why she did not believe that it was her role to make recommendations about individuals. It seems that there was tick-tacking backwards and forwards and she passed the buck to the government when she said that the terms of reference for the review did not require her to make recommendations of this kind. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that we have had a bit of duckshoving and copping out. I am wondering why the government was not more thorough and precise in laying down the terms of reference in the beginning if Ms Gallagher is concerned that no individual recommendations or findings were made against people.

The commissioner noted, according to the report we have before us, that it was her view that it would not be fair for one entity, the commissioner, to conduct a review and investigation and then recommend on outcomes for individuals. I have to ask: why not? Surely one would go with the other and surely that is her. I have always had underlying challenges with the Commissioner for Public Administration conducting this report, given that she was a former employee of the department. I have a problem with the fact that the culture of somebody who did an excellent job whilst working for the department would remain with that person for quite some time afterward. I think that there is a culture thing there and I am concerned that those recommendations were not made as a result of the commissioner’s previous associations with the department. That is something only she can answer.

The committee was deeply concerned about the issues of responsibility and accountability, as distinct from blame. I think that it was a really good point that the committee made. It is not about the blame game, witch-hunting or whatever. It is not about personalities. It is all about the integrity of the positions—not only positions held in this place as ministers, as members or as shadow ministers, but also positions held as departmental officials.

Another issue that the committee has brought forward is the second report of Commissioner Vardon, namely, the report on the audit and case review. According to page 32 of the estimates committee’s report on the appropriation bill, the report will be completed in mid-July 2004. It seems to me that there is a little contradiction here. At the beginning of the Territory as parent report, on page ix under the section about acknowledgments, it is said that the audit and case review team will continue until the end of May, when a report on the outcome of the audit will be presented to the Chief Minister.

I have been asking where that report is at. Has there been a request for an extension of time to complete this report? Why have we not seen it before now? I will be following that matter closely. I am wondering and asking now why we do not have that report before us today. In recommendation 17 the committee recommended that the government consider the audit and case review before finalising implementation plans and before bringing to the Assembly amendments to the budget or, if needed, a second appropriate bill. Obviously, it is a matter for the estimates committee; it clearly was an issue that needed to be brought before the estimates committee and questioned. Paragraph 6.40 of the report reads:

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