Page 598 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
statements were made in the review, made on no evidence other than hearsay and some personal experiences.
It was not entirely clear what was proposed by the review to strengthen the implementation of the Latimer House principles in the ACT, which is regrettable. This resulted in, I think, towards the end of last year, some members in this place having to investigate where some things had been drawn from, given that they received media attention and were erroneous.
What the review did do, though, was to particularly reflect on the committee systems and the interactions of the non-executive with the executive. We determined again that the analysis of some indicators was erroneous and considered only a very limited selection of how members of the non-executive interact with the executive in providing that review. Helpfully, the review did focus on the number and the size of committees in the ACT and the workload of these committees.
I will note that, personally, it appears that the membership size of the public accounts committee is one of the smallest not only in all Australian jurisdictions but also in the Australia-Pacific region. Everyone knows where I stand on the necessity of having a standalone estimates committee and the review made comments on both of those. As a result, the administration and procedure committee has made a recommendation that, at the beginning of the 10th Assembly, the Assembly and the government consider the comments and suggestions contained in the review regarding committee structures, in advance of actually creating those committees, using that evidence to inform what the committee structure should look like for the 10th Assembly.
The committee has also recommended that the matters raised in the review in relation to the role and operation of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be brought to the attention of that committee and that that committee be invited to respond to the Assembly on why so few reports on Auditor-General’s reports have so far been presented. At the time of the review I think no reports had been presented, but since then there have been at least two, I think, with more to come. The public accounts committee is also being invited to provide its own views on its preferred form, structure, membership and terms of reference for any future public accounts committee for the Assembly, which I think is sensible.
The review also noted that while officers of the parliament were created in 2013, there is a distinct absence of them being profiled on the ACT parliament’s website. Of course, the committee is supportive of providing this on the website and has thus made a recommendation to that effect. I am sure that will be easy to implement.
Finally, the review concluded that “the Australian Capital Territory’s record in implementing Latimer House Principles is highly credible and notable”, so that is a good pat on the back for us. But it also noted that tensions will continue to exist between the branches, which is healthy, and the Latimer House principles do provide a focus on examining performance. However, this is the third review of the Assembly in 12 years. As the Assembly is now 30 years old, we considered as a committee that a review once every four years is no longer warranted, and a better time frame is perhaps once every eight years. We have made a recommendation to that effect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video