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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4402 ..

Having consulted the Auditor-General, I would like to add that there are additional concerns that were raised in report No 9 of 2003 by the Auditor-General. These are also included in report 9 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The auditor raised the issue of government outsourcing and the fact that the auditor does not currently have the ability to audit all government services provided outside government with public funds.

This is an area that is necessary for future reform, as it would be best to achieve a situation where the auditor has legislative access to audit all government contracts with outside service providers in both the private and the community sectors. I understand that some progress has been made in writing this condition into all new government contracts as a standard clause. That is a welcome step forward. However, the fact remains that some existing service providers are still shielded from this measure.

I recognise that some service providers, particularly in the community sector, do not have comprehensive accounting systems that would allow them to pass such an audit. Whilst I appreciate that those in this position should be allowed additional time to ensure that they can implement changes to allow them to be audited, this change should not be put off indefinitely.

At some point in the near future, the statutes should be amended so that the Auditor-General has the power to audit all government services provided outside government with public funds. That is the only way that the Assembly can be assured that there is accountability in the way that government services are provided and it should be an early priority of the next government and the next Assembly.

Some issues were raised by the scrutiny of bills committee in relation to this legislation. Members will note that I have circulated some amendments that go mainly to the issue of strict liability, which I will discuss in the detail stage. However, I want to make some comments upon some of the other issues that the scrutiny committee touched upon.

One was the displacement of the privilege against self-incrimination. I see this privilege more and more frequently in legislation. I think that we need to think carefully about when and why it is included. I am wary about its inclusion in this bill for a number of reasons. First, there is the general issue of whether it is appropriate for a democratic government to be legislating for what amounts to a forced confession under threat of penalty.

Secondly, this provision is usually inserted to allow government agencies to avert a potential threat to life or the environment, such as in the Dangerous Substances Act or the gene technology legislation. In this case, it is unlikely that the auditor will be using the provisions to avert or prevent a potential disaster, so the argument for displacing the privilege is, I think, weakened.

Thirdly, there is the possibility that these provisions may be inadvertently protecting people from criminal charges. If the auditor uses these powers to unveil possible criminal behaviour, it may be very difficult later to charge those individuals with the crimes that they have admitted to.

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