Page 1528 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So there is a recognition that the model of having officers of the parliament is one that is warranted. In the report, we explore in some detail the background of this—both the academic background, I guess the theoretical background, and also the practical experience where these positions have been established in other jurisdictions. The report in some ways has framed the pros and cons of having these positions, and I think that is a useful delineation of the issues. The committee concluded that it was appropriate to have officers of parliament.
Recommendation 2 is this:
The committee recommends that a two tiered test be established for determining whether a statutory office is appropriate to be considered for Officer of the Parliament status …
It also recommended that that test be as outlined on page 40 of the report, where it is done in a graphical form. In some ways, it tries to provide a step-through approach. The essence of the criteria, and it is dealt with in the first question here in the diagram, is this:
Does the Office discharge the functions that the Parliament might in terms of scrutinising the executive?
This question seeks to identify the situation where, for example, the Auditor-General performs a duty that the parliament might perform but perhaps does not have the requisite resources to undertake. So in some senses, the Auditor-General, or any other office holder, could be seen to be acting for the parliament or on its behalf, or perhaps fulfilling a duty.
The test goes through and identifies a number of other questions to help refine the approach and ensure that only a limited number of officers might qualify. I think the sense in the committee was that this was not a whole vast range of officers that would be included.
The second key question in the test is this:
If the Office discharges functions that the Parliament might, would the functions of Parliament and the Office be enhanced if they had an Officer of the Parliament relationship?
This is the second key test: what is the advantage of moving to that place and having that specific designation? Again, there is a series of questions put there and the report elaborates on those points. I will not go into that in great detail now; the committee has come up with its findings, and it is best that we let the report speak for itself.
I return to the recommendations. Recommendation No 3 says:
The committee recommends that the Auditor-General become an Officer of the Parliament.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video