Page 1211 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
information and then with less to do we want to have longer to do it.” I think that only ACT Labor could actually come up with such a convoluted nonsense argument—on the one hand, to remove aspects of accountability, to remove work for the agencies to do, to provide less information and then to say that they need more time to do that.
I understand that this has caused a bit of a kerfuffle. I think that the government and the Greens have latched on to this. They have realised that this is a bit of an odd argument that has been mounted by the government. My understanding is that this debate will be adjourned by Mr Rattenbury and that it will be referred to PAC to look at. We would support that.
We have a clear position on this bill but certainly we are happy for an extra look at this. We are happy to allow the Greens, who seem to be coming late to this party, to have a look at the detail of what is going to be removed from annual reports. Perhaps the Greens can try and digest why it is that Labor wants to remove a whole bunch of information, remove a whole bunch of work, but wants longer to do it. I am happy for that to occur.
I can outline that we will be supporting this legislation in principle. We will be opposing those sections which relate to the extension of reporting time from three months to four months. But we are quite happy if there is going to be a closer look at those aspects being removed to make sure that we are all comfortable that what is being removed will not impinge on important accountability measures which we should have access to.
Regardless of that, I still make the point that this government should remain open to the fact that when the opposition or anyone else say that they want to know what this information is that is currently in the annual reports but that is going to be removed—be it through FOI, be it through questions on notice, questions without notice or simply by writing to the minister—that information should be made available.
My understanding now is that this will be adjourned. As I said, we will support that. I look forward to engaging in this debate once this bill is brought back before the Assembly at a future date.
Debate (on motion by Mr Rattenbury) adjourned to the next sitting.
Public Accounts—Standing Committee
Reference
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.12), by leave: I move:
That:
(1) the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Amendment Bill 2014 be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for inquiry and report;
(2) the Committee is to consider the bill in conjunction with online reporting requirements; and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video