Page 1530 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
passage of the Assembly bill at this stage but, should that pass, that would provide the mechanism for officers to be separately appropriated.
Let me conclude by thanking my fellow members of the committee. There have been a few, given recent changes in the membership of the committee. Ms Bresnan, Mrs Dunne, Mr Hanson, Mr Hargreaves and Ms Porter have all contributed to the development of this report. In some ways, I think it is very beneficial that we have had so many members of the committee, because it has enabled us to come up with a good report, one that all parts of the chamber feel is an appropriate way forward. I found some of the discussions very interesting and there were some very thoughtful contributions.
I would also like to thank the staff of the secretariat who supported this inquiry: the Clerk; Janice Rafferty; Celeste Italiano; and, particularly, Ms Robyn Unger, who was the inquiry secretary and who is here on the work in the Assembly program. I will just speak briefly about this. Ms Unger brought a particular perspective from previously working in the executive. Her particular expertise and enthusiasm for the topic assisted the committee a great deal. It points to the value of the work in the Assembly program whereby a member of the ACT public service was able to come to the Assembly. I think she learned a great deal from being here, and she was also able to add skills to the Assembly’s processes. I particularly acknowledge the value of the work in the Assembly project and I commend the report to the Assembly.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (11.55): It is a rather important step that we, as a parliament, are embarking upon here. We certainly are picking up some leads from other parliaments, but as a small parliament we are taking a rather large step.
This report is an absolute must-read for all members of this chamber. I would also put out a call to people who believe themselves to be leading members of academia in political science in this city to obtain a copy of this report and read it closely. It provides a very good discussion of why there should be an officer of the parliament. It provides a very good discussion of how such an officer would be created or at least determined. It also provides a series of challenges to a legislature, and I will go into two of those in a minute.
I wish to specifically refer members to page 40, on which is the flow chart which is the checklist as to how a position becomes an office of parliament. I want to offer my congratulations to the Clerk and his officers on the compilation of that and the development of that—for providing it to the committee, which picked it up. It is an excellent addition to the actual words that are contained in this document. It hinges around a statutory officer whose prime raison d’etre is service to the parliament. It is not service to the bureaucracy, not service to the people, not service to the executive; it is service to the parliament. This checklist shows you how that can be determined.
That happens when you look at this and tick all the boxes. The Auditor-General’s office actually does tick those boxes. In my view, none of the others do, for varying reasons. The Ombudsman may very well have done if it was not for the fact that we have a commonwealth ombudsman in a dual role. Obviously the opportunity to re-examine that will occur when the ACT has its own ombudsman, and I wish everybody the best of luck when that time comes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video