Page 5513 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Public Accounts concluding its consideration of the nominee for the position of Auditor-General of the territory was not a contempt.
The committee went on to consider that, notwithstanding its findings and based on the evidence given in this inquiry, there would be benefit in clarifying the policy in relation to these matters. The process applied in this instance was unhelpful and the committee notes that if a formal process is not developed it will lead to further problems with future appointments.
It should be recognised that due to the relevant sections of both the Legislation Act 2001 and the Auditor-General Act 1996, both the legislature and the executive have an important role to play in ensuring that the process for appointing territory officials is sound and well understood by everyone involved.
Whilst it appears that the executive wants to reform the process to ensure greater transparency and accountability, such reform must occur with the support, understanding and cooperation of both branches of government. It is incumbent on both the executive and all members to respect the processes in place. Therefore, two recommendations have been put forward in this report. Recommendation 1 states:
The committee recommends that (a) the Chief Minister and the Speaker (in consultation with committee chairs) develop a resolution of continuing effect on how the executive and the legislature should deal with the consideration of statutory appointments with the aim of assisting both branches of government to conduct their respective roles in a respectful and an effective manner and (b) until the resolution is agreed to, the executive not release publicly the names of any person that is to be considered by an Assembly Committee.
Recommendation 2 states:
The committee recommends that the Government examine section 8 of the Auditor-General Act 1996 and, following consultation with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, suggest possible amendments to give better clarity to this section.
The second matter referred to the committee was the approach made to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by the nominee for the position of Auditor-General of the territory and whether that was a contempt. Having considered the evidence, the committee does not believe that there was any attempt by the nominee to influence the chair of the committee or the committee as a whole in its consideration of the nominee by the executive to the position of Auditor-General.
Whilst the situation was no doubt awkward for both of the participants in the conversation, it does not amount in the committee’s opinion to a contempt. Therefore, finding 2 states in full:
Having regard to all the evidence before it, the committee considers that the approach to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by the nominee for the position of Auditor-General of the Territory was not a contempt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video