Page 5583 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of the appointment and, indeed, our questions around the qualifications of Dr Cooper in terms of this role. There is no doubt that the cavalier handling of this by the Chief Minister has put the entire process into doubt. From the fireside chat and the publication of the nomination to the inappropriate interference with the chair of the public accounts committee, there is no doubt that the cavalier attitude of this Chief Minister reflects very poorly on her and has undermined this process.
We also believe that the Auditor-General of the ACT should, ideally, either be an auditor or have very strong financial qualifications and a financial background. That is not an unreasonable thing. If you look around the country, that is the way these things are done. So we make no apology for raising our concerns. We are doing what the legislation allows us to do. Ms Gallagher’s argument seems to be that, despite the fact that the legislation allows this, we should never, ever have these debates.
We are putting on the record not only our concerns about the cavalier way in which Ms Gallagher handled this—and I have made clear some concerns about the way in which Dr Cooper handled the process—but, more importantly, that we believe it is reasonable to expect that the government will appoint someone as Auditor-General who is, ideally, an auditor or at the very least has very strong financial qualifications and a financial background. For those reasons we believe this disallowance should be supported. I commend Mr Smyth for bringing it forward and I commend it to the Assembly.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.40), in reply: As I predicted, the defence put forward by the Chief Minister is that we are attacking the individual concerned. We are not. The point here is that the government would now have you believe that disallowable instruments—they are called disallowable instruments so that this place can have oversight of those activities of the government—should never be questioned. That is the position put forward by the Chief Minister: how dare we use the process that allows this place to question something the government does by challenging a disallowable instrument? If you do not want disallowable instruments challenged, then change them. Just call them government instruments. Change the law. But that is the law as it stands, and that is the law as it has stood since this place began.
There seems to be some question about what PAC might do in this. PAC is also the oversight committee on behalf of this place, in this place’s relationship with the Auditor-General. It is entirely appropriate for a member of PAC to exercise the ability to question a disallowable instrument and seek to have it overturned.
Ms Gallagher says that this is all about her. In a way, yes, it is all about her, because it is her poor process. She started this by breaking from convention, for reasons unknown. I am not aware of any case where the confidentiality of a statutory appointment has been broken—not ever. Indeed, there was a slur in Ms Gallagher’s letter—either a letter to PAC or a conversation with you, Ms Le Couteur, as the chair of PAC—that in some way this might leak. That is a reflection on the public accounts committee, and I absolutely reject that. It has never leaked before. If you have got examples of the public accounts committee leaking anything you gave them, Chief Minister, put it on the table.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video