Page 2828 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is fine. Verbal the Auditor-General, attack the Auditor-General, threaten the Auditor-General, do not hold the Chief Minister to account. Isn’t that funny? The Auditor-General, the person’s whose independence is guaranteed by her legislation to hold the judiciary to account, gets verballed, gets assaulted, by the words of the Chief Minister, has imputations cast on her reputation and her efficiency, but the Greens will not hold him to account for that. The Greens think that is okay. Removing that line from this motion is a clear signal to the Chief Minister: continue on your way, because we are not going to stand up to you, we are not going to hold you to account.
Then we get agreement from the Chief Minister to the Greens’ amendment. He does not want this on the record, so he will go for the other option. But even before the motion is passed, he is squirming out of it. Part (4) of Ms Le Couteur’s amendment states:
(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.
So the Chief Minister said, “She can do this with greater efficiency.” Yet we know she cannot. She ran at a loss last year because the government has squeezed her funding. Go to the budget papers. There was a $199,000 deficit because the Chief Minister does not like scrutiny. But the Greens think that is okay. Then he says in this place, “We will force efficiency on her, even though she is independent.” You only have to read the recommendation. I have read it twice. I will read it a third time. Have people not read the government’s response? It is:
The government intends to seek external advice on a methodology to support the Auditor General identifying and prioritising activities for the performance audit program. Following consideration by the government, this advice will be provided to the Public Accounts Committee …
This is what he is saying: “I’m going to interfere. I’m going to manipulate this. I’m going to be in charge. What don’t you understand? I’m in charge and what I say goes.” And the Greens are going to let him get away with it. He said he is going to take your recommendation and he is going to laugh at it. That is how he behaves, and the pattern of behaviour is here.
He laughed at the coroner. We heard all the quotes from Mr Seselja: “She’s great; she’s going to do a good job; she’ll be a great coroner. Until she gets close to the truth, and then what do I do? I go to court. I slow her down; I stop her; I attack her. What am I doing with the Auditor-General? I slow her down; I stop her; I attack her.” That is his pattern of behaviour and I do not understand why you will not hold him to account. What are you afraid of?
He is not afraid. He is just taking your amendment, as he did your agreement, and twisted it against you. “Yes, she can do eight; I’ll make her do eight.” He actually cannot. He can fund her to do eight. She is independent. She sets her own priorities. She talks with the public accounts committee about it, but it is not for the Chief Minister to do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .