Page 2809 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is a ridiculous comment and it demonstrates how he will seek to muddy the waters. I am disappointed that Ms Hunter appears to have in some way supported the comment. I am sure that she will clarify her statements when she gets up. It is a silly comment from the Chief Minister to try and compare the Auditor-General to any other department and it demonstrates how they will try and muddy the waters on this issue.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.37): I move the following amendment circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “programs” in paragraph (1), substitute:
“as expressed by the Latimer House Principles as adopted by the ACT Legislative Assembly;
(2) notes the ACT Auditor-General is held in high regard by the Assembly and the ACT community;
(3) commends the ACT Auditor-General’s Office for its past work on behalf of the community; and
(4) calls on the ACT Government to ensure adequate funding for the Office of Auditor-General, including the capacity to maintain the current level of performance audits.”.
I will start off just by saying that I think that basically we are all in furious agreement about one thing: the Auditor-General is important; the Auditor-General is a very important part of scrutiny of the executive. I believe that we all in this house support an independent Auditor-General because we believe this is a very important role in our parliamentary democracy.
On that, I would like to say that I think Mr Smyth’s bill is very important. I have at this stage a totally open mind as to whether or not it is the way to go, but I think it is very important because it will give us a chance to sit back and really look at what is the best way of funding the Auditor-General so that we do not have debates like this every year.
Mr Smyth mentioned that he had spoken to the Greens, who I believe will probably support sending the bill to a committee inquiry. It would seem to me that it needs detailed consideration. The government will have a view, we will have a view and, importantly, the Auditor-General and the public will have a view. Those views all need to be taken into account.
Mr Seselja’s motion to some extent seems irrelevant given Mr Smyth’s bill. Mr Smyth’s bill seems like possibly the way forward and Mr Seselja’s motion seems to sort of assume that nothing is going to happen as a result of Mr Smyth’s bill. So maybe I will just move on to my amendment and why I am making it.
I am not amending the first paragraph, as I am sure that we all agree with it: “supports the important role played by the ACT Auditor-General in monitoring government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .