Page 269 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
independence and is significant. It provides an opportunity for possible savage criticism of the government of the day, as delivered by successive auditors-general.
Like any agency existing off the taxpayers’ teat, the Auditor-General has obviously to substantiate a need for additional funds and compete with other worthwhile activities, such as the other oversight statutory officers. The independence of the position is guaranteed by the Auditor-General Act, as has been bewailed many times in this place. However, I have not met an auditor-general that has cowered before a chief minister or any other minister over 40 years in public services, the last 13 of which have been in this place. So I cannot support recommendation 1 of the report. “A good start,” I thought to myself.
I come, though, to recommendation 7, which I cannot support either. As I have indicated in paragraph 4.38 of my dissenting report, I believe that this recommendation offends the doctrine of the separation of powers in that the legislature should not involve itself in the detail of governance. The current role of the committee is to exercise the power of concurrence with, or veto of, the recommended application for the position. For a committee to recommend an outcome implies that it will involve itself in the selection process, and that is not acceptable to me. Committees should restrict themselves to parliamentary business and not get involved with the day-to-day activities of government.
Further, there was an implication that such committee membership will contain the expertise to check the qualities of applicants. The current committee does not possess this expertise in terms of qualifications nor public administration.
I disagree with recommendation 9, for similar reasons. This recommendation empowers the Legislative Assembly to choose an applicant for appointment to a statutory position. The parliament should not be an interview panel. It should not be part of the process. It should be a ratifying body or a veto-carrying body. This current Assembly does not actually appoint anyone. It approves, through a vote on a motion, such appointments recommended to it. It holds no formal delegation to appoint anyone to any position, and this is how it should remain.
Recommendation 12 suggests that the Auditor-General take an oath or affirmation of office. This is totally inappropriate. Do we require the Clerk to take an oath? Do we require the chief executive officers to take an oath? Do we require other oversight statutory office holders to take an oath? Do you want an answer? No. The taking of oaths should be limited, as they are today, to elected representatives, the police and the judiciary. Paragraph 5.48 suggests that the taking of this oath will “symbolically strengthen the relationship between the Auditor-General and the Assembly”. What arrant nonsense!
I found recommendation 23 insulting in the extreme. It suggests that the PAC only ever be chaired by a non-government member and that it have a membership that does not constitute a government majority. To the ludicrous bit first, any casual observer of this place will see that it is impossible for the government of the day to have a majority on any committee. What part about six opposition and four crossbenchers versus two government backbenchers don’t you get? Even in majority government,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video