Page 5581 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
trample on highly qualified professionals in the way that they do through this disallowance today.
This is not about the Auditor-General. This is about a political attack on me and the fact that you disagree with me issuing a media release. That is where this has got to. It is disgraceful, because you are setting a precedent here. I think that is very dangerous. It will impact on other people’s decisions about going for important positions in the ACT. If this is the sort of fun and games that you are going to have every time you disagree with something the government does, that you are prepared to take this sort of action, it really sends a message about how desperate you are and where you are prepared to go in order to achieve what you see as a political gain. That is unfortunate.
The government will not be supporting this disallowance. We strongly support the appointment of the Auditor-General and we strongly support her continuing in her job. This Assembly needs to support the work of the Auditor-General. It should not be seeking to sack the Auditor-General.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.32): I would like to start my remarks by saying that this debate is about whether Dr Maxine Cooper is an appropriate or acceptable appointment for the position of the Auditor-General of the ACT. The question is not whether the process of arriving at her selection or the way that nomination was communicated to the public accounts committee or the broader community was appropriate. The question is whether Dr Cooper, on her merits, should be appointed as the Auditor-General.
Effectively, this debate is a merits review of the appointment of Dr Cooper. The process and alleged deficiency in that process, which has been considered by the privileges committee, is not relevant at this stage. For today’s debate we should ignore that issue. Approving Dr Cooper’s appointment does not offer any indication on any views on the manner of appointment. The privileges have made their findings on that issue.
Any views on the manner of appointment should not in any way colour or cloud our judgement about the appointment of Dr Cooper. To do this would be a particular disservice to the office of the Auditor-General, trust placed in that office and also personally to Dr Cooper. It is an independent office—the act makes that very clear—so to attempt to assert that somehow the role will not be properly fulfilled for the next seven years because you have doubts about the process does a great injustice to the integrity and stature of that office.
The only question is whether or not Dr Maxine Cooper is a suitably qualified person to fulfil the role. Nothing else is relevant at this stage. In moving the disallowance the Canberra Liberals are saying that they do not believe that Dr Cooper is suitably qualified or has the necessary skills to fulfil the role. The Greens do believe that Dr Cooper is an appropriate appointment, consistent with the requirements of the act and our expectations of the requirements to fulfil the role.
It is our view that she does possess the necessary qualifications and skills to be the Auditor-General. I do not believe that she will approach the role in anything other
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video