Page 5579 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
questioning qualifications, for example. So I do not think it is fair to say this is not about the individual occupant of that position. I would also say that this disallowance motion and the issues that Mr Smyth has raised are quite separate from the issues that have been examined and reported on today through the privileges inquiry.
The process for the appointment of the Auditor-General was a thorough one. We have provided all the information that was sought by the public accounts committee, including a private briefing to answer questions that they may have had. The position was advertised widely. It was advertised nationally. A selection process was undertaken by very senior public servants sitting on that panel. Indeed, the most senior public servants in the territory sat on the panel and interviewed candidates.
Whilst Mr Smyth might not agree with the process, I do not think there are any grounds to say that it was not a thorough and robust process. We went through that process. The requirements of the act required consultation with the public accounts committee. That has been undertaken. The public accounts committee has approved the appointment of the Auditor-General and the Auditor-General is now in place.
It is important that Mr Smyth acknowledge that the gripes that he has with me issuing a press release are legitimately quite separate to the process that was undertaken for the recruitment and appointment of the new Auditor-General for the ACT. This is not the way to get the political outcome that Mr Smyth wants, which is obviously to attack me—and that is fair enough; I have got the capacity in this position to defend myself. Mr Smyth has used the avenues available to him to protest and complain about my actions, and it should have ended there. There is absolutely no reason—obviously it was with the support of Mr Seselja—that this motion should have been brought to this place today.
It is unfortunate because we have a very senior, capable appointment to the Auditor-General’s position. That appointment has taken effect. That person is in the job and doing what the Auditor-General needs to do. This is very much about sandpit politics, I think, and needs to be seen as such. We need to recognise that the person that the Liberal Party are trying to get and damage is me, but in the process they are prepared to demean and wreck the position of the Auditor-General.
Mr Smyth, you predicted that I would have this view, and I do have this view, because your target in this over-exaggerated political campaign is me. It is actually not the Auditor-General. It is not the role of members in this place, I do not believe, to necessarily have a view—well, you can have the view—that the selection process was flawed without any grounds. The qualifications of the current Auditor-General meet the requirements.
You cannot come in here and all of a sudden start yelling out about the qualifications issue and not say that you are not attacking the individual who is in the job. You simply cannot have it both ways. There is a process in place for the appointment of the Auditor-General. The appointment was advertised. There were applicants for the position. There were interviews conducted. We have met with the public accounts committee to discuss additional information that they sought. There is no prerequisite in terms of particular types of qualifications required for the position of the Auditor-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video