Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 22 September 2010) . . Page.. 4253 ..

it, would benefit from a thorough analysis that can be provided through a public inquiry and the expertise of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I understand that the committee might not be able to get to this in the next week, but I do believe this is the appropriate place for this issue to be referred to in the short term prior to returning to the Assembly for more thorough debate in the future.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.35): Yes, I was quite surprised to hear yesterday morning that it was going to PAC. Nobody had consulted with me. As a member of the committee that is going to be discussing this, I was quite surprised that we were receiving it and that we were doing the inquiry. I think it is appropriate that people speak at least to the chair and that the chair consult with members of the committee before such announcements are made publicly on the radio.

That notwithstanding, as I said in the estimates these are interesting issues that need to be addressed. The whole issue of what is ethical certainly needs to be addressed. Given the heavy workload that PAC has, and I will not pre-empt the chair on this if the chair wants to say something, it will be interesting to see where we fit this in. PAC has a number of inquiries on foot and more to come. But, yes, it is an issue that I am sure most members—certainly I will—will enjoy looking at.

MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (10.35): We will be supporting this motion to send the exposure draft off to the committee for inquiry. There was a discussion with the chair of the public accounts committee. I believe there was a discussion that was raised with the committee itself. Certainly, my office did have a discussion because we were aware that we needed to check out the schedule and the inquiries that PAC were involved in.

We certainly took the time out to do that. We understood that there was a possibility that this could be taken on. That is why I believe this is the right way to go. It is a complex area. I believe that it is important we do have this inquiry, wide-ranging debate and conversations. Therefore, we will be supporting this motion.

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.36): Just very briefly, yes, it was discussed with PAC. One of the pieces of advice I gave was that PAC’s timetable is fairly tight at present; so I understand that the referral is without a reporting date. I think I can speak on behalf of all PAC members when I say that we appreciate this because we do have quite a bit on our plate at present. We will obviously accept the will of the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Information and communications technology

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.37): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) notes that information and communications technology (ICT) is:

(a) a major enabler of government function;

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video