Page 3077 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In the case of the Ombudsman, this will be the committee responsible for the examination of matters related to the integrity and accountability of public administration, similar to the arrangement in Victoria where the ombudsman is linked with the accountability and oversight committee of the Victorian parliament. The Electoral Commission will be linked to the committee responsible for electoral matters.
Obviously we currently do not have committees that have these explicit responsibilities, and changes will need to be made to the resolutions of appointment for our current standing committees. The reason that the bill proposes to do it like this is to allow the Assembly to make a decision on where the officers would best sit following the passage of the bill and also to respond to the contemporary circumstances as the new arrangements develop over time.
It is my hope that officers and Assembly committees will work closely together and develop strong collaborative links to better assist us to get the best outcomes for all Canberrans, and the bill tries to leave some flexibility for the Assembly to ensure that this can occur.
The other very important reform that complements the recognition of these positions as officers of the Assembly is the process that the bill proposes for the allocation of funding to the officers. Under the bill, for each financial year, after having consulted with the relevant Assembly committee and the office-holders themselves, the Speaker will be required to make a recommendation to the Treasurer for the amount that should be appropriated for the respective officers of the Assembly, and this recommendation must also be presented to the Assembly. Should the Treasurer present a bill to appropriate a lesser amount to any of the officers of the Assembly, the Treasurer will be required to present a statement of reasons to the Assembly explaining why the recommendation has not been adopted by the appropriation bill being proposed.
This process is essentially the same as what the Assembly adopted for the Office of the Legislative Assembly last year. It appropriately balances the requirements of the self-government act with the acknowledgement that the Assembly has a role to play in determining the resourcing that should be made available to officers of the Assembly.
While a non-executive member cannot propose a bill for an appropriation, it is entirely appropriate that the Assembly give an indication of the amount that it believes should be appropriated for these positions, and the executive should have to publicly explain itself if it does not follow the recommendation of the Assembly.
On this issue I would draw members’ attention to the paper given by the Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Parry, to the presiding officers and clerks conference held by the Assembly recently. Senator Parry went to some length to commend the ACT for the approach we have taken to setting the budget of the Assembly. He described our system as being strongly reflective of the ideals of the Latimer House principles, well advanced and something to be aspired to by all parliaments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video