 |
Legislative
Council |
|
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Adjourned debate on motion of the Treasurer:
That the report of the Auditor-General, 1999-2000, be noted. (Continued from 25 October. Page 224.)The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I will speak briefly to this motion to raise an issue that I have raised on a previous occasion and that is that, while a motion such as this provides an opportunity to make observations in relation to the Auditor-General's Report, it has also been seen by some as a chance to ask questions. Of course, the questions cannot be asked of the Auditor-General: the questions are asked of the Treasurer. I make the point that the Auditor-General is an officer of this parliament and I believe that the parliament should have an opportunity to have direct discourse with the Auditor-General. I suggested, through a motion I moved here on a previous occasion, that this Council should be able to resolve itself into a committee of the whole and invite the Auditor-General to appear before the Council so that we might question him in the way that we might question a minister.
The reason I want to do that is that I have seen various members of this place take the Auditor-General's Report and put quite different interpretations on the same set of words. The only person who really knows what the Auditor-General means when he says some things is the Auditor-General himself. I do not know whether it is his writing style or whether it is just the way that politicians operate. As I said, it has been quite clear that, on a number of occasions when the Auditor-General makes a report, quite different interpretations are made on the same set of words. I believe that, if the Auditor-General is saying things which the Treasurer says, for example, justify the sale of ETSA or, after the sale, indicate that things are going badly or going well, depending on what interpretation you want to put on it, there should be an opportunity for all members of this place to ask questions directly of the Auditor-General so that his public reports are further analysed and on the public record and so that there is a clear understanding of what the Auditor-General means rather than an interpretation for what are sometimes political ends. So, again, I repeat— The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Whose political ends? The Auditor's?The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, whoever puts on the interpretation. As I said, I have seen the same sets of words interpreted quite differently by people on occasions. I think it is important that, when the Auditor is making comment—and that comment is, in fact, comment to parliament—parliament has a very clear understanding of what it is he is saying.
The Hon. J.F. Stefani: You could ring him up and find out, though, couldn't you?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I argue that, when things are capable of being interpreted differently and are capable of dispute, a series of private telephone conversations with different members of this place probably does not resolve it because, at the end of the day, while he is an officer of the parliament, parliament is still ultimately responsible to the people. The Auditor-General's Report, particularly when he is making comments that are of great concern, must be comprehensible, first, to members of this place and, ultimately, understandable to the population at large.
I ask members again to give serious consideration to the proposal that I put to this place that we should have an opportunity, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, to ask questions of the Auditor-General.
The Hon. T. CROTHERS secured the adjournment of the debate.[National]
[Search] [Browse]
[People] [Party]
[Parliament] [Election]
[News
& Media] [Support
Us] [Contact
Us] [Main Page]
As of 1/1/2001 this site is
a Disability Access Approved Site 
