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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4403 ..

That being said, I am aware that, if a privilege is not able to be displaced, individuals may be able to use the privilege to conceal important information. In a sense, the Auditor-General is the pinnacle of our financial accountability system and it is important that the auditors are able to get true and accurate information. However, these powers must be used cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances.

I would like to make a quick comment on proposed new section 19A. This section goes to the issue of cabinet confidentiality. I understand that the changes to section 19 are simply technical and the amendments have no effect on the current operation of the act. However, the section should not be interpreted as support for the idea that cabinet confidentiality is absolute.

There is a reasonable argument that cabinet should be able to discuss issues in camera and in confidence and that it should be able to keep these discussions confidential so that it can have free and frank discussions about the issues facing government. But this protection should not cover a government in instances where the legality or ethics of cabinet have been called into question and the public has the right to an assurance that cabinet is operating in the best interests of the public and the broader community. Like other parts of this legislation, the ability of the Chief Minister to issue a certificate that certain documents must not be released must be used with extreme care and, I urge, as rarely as possible.

This bill takes a few steps to strengthen the powers of the Auditor-General and is a positive move for ACT governance, which is why I am supporting the bill as it stands.

MS TUCKER (8.58): The Greens will be supporting this bill. The bill implements some changes that were recommended by the previous Auditor-General, Mr Parkinson, on the basis of his experience in the job. Mr Parkinson presided over a couple of in-depth inquiries, including the performance audit of the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium in 2000. Findings of this 11-volume report led to the resignation of the then Chief Minister.

Some of the recommendations made by Mr Parkinson have not been picked up. One is the power to audit outsourced activities. This suggestion has not been picked up in this bill. It is about an important gap, one that has been filled in areas such as industrial relations and industrial accidents, but there are issues around making sure that appropriate arrangements are in place for the community sector before this is done.

The recommendation about the confidentiality of information provided to third parties in the course of an audit, except in the performance of a function of the Auditor-General, also has not been picked up. The suggestion concerning the power to receive information on oath is one that has been picked up in the bill before us today. Mr Parkinson noted that the Commonwealth Auditor-General and most state auditors-general have this power.

The power to compel people to give evidence, to attend and to stay attending is a strong power. The bill today removes the defence of self-incrimination from people being questioned in this way. However, it also provides a derivative immunity for the person making the disclosure. In the end, this means that the balance is on the side of getting the story out in the open via the Auditor-General, rather than ensuring prosecution of that

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