Page 5575 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
recommendations 3 and 4—and it was the recommendation of the majority of submissions, including the Auditor-General’s.
We spent considerable effort drafting along these lines and circulated a draft to that effect to both the Greens and the government. However, the government response of late last week proposed a single expert in lieu of a panel, for resourcing, scheduling and practical reasons. This is an area where we have responded to the government’s submission with these important safeguards: if there is only one person they must be absolutely irreproachable, they must have the authority and support of the Assembly before they begin, they should have expertise and experience to do the job and they must be independent.
We therefore propose that the minister make a choice that must be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly and must be genuinely independent, qualified, and appropriate. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (4.17): I must say that the government is pleased that through the inquiry process there is now unanimous agreement that an independent and non-auditor-general appointee is preferred. To that extent, the government is pleased with the amendment moved and is happy to agree with the essential qualifications and the thrust of Mr Seselja’s amendment in relation to the reviewer.
The area of difference for us is in relation to the method of appointment. Let me say that we accept proposed subsections 9A(1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) but proposed subsection (4)—namely, that the minister must not appoint a person as a reviewer unless the Legislative Assembly has approved the appointment by resolution passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of members—is the only aspect of Mr Seselja’s amendment with which we take issue. We see it as a very significant departure from the norms of this place, and we do have a quite genuine concern that it is a significant blurring of the separation responsibility between the executive and the legislature.
It is quite unique. I know of no other example. In fact, I know of no other example nationally of a proposal such as this where the legislature takes onto itself responsibility for appointing a legislative-based statutory officer. Any such officer appointed by a minister is of course responsible to the Assembly or to the legislature through the executive, through the responsible minister, which provides a significant level of accountability.
We do believe this proposal that the legislature takes unto itself responsibility, to the extent that a two-thirds majority is required, is interesting. There may be Assemblies in future where that is going to be difficult to achieve, having regard to future make-ups. I think that is an issue that might be taken into account.
I just make those points. It is for those reasons that I will support, as I have said, the majority of the proposal and the process which Mr Seselja proposes in his amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video