Mike Elliott: Powers to Auditor General to handle the Hindmarsh Stadium INquiry

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
26 July 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: On behalf of the Democrats, I support the second reading of the bill. On reading the Auditor-General's report yesterday, it was immediately apparent that legislation was necessary and I instructed parliamentary counsel accordingly and gave notice of a private member's bill myself. I am glad that the government has come forward with a bill, in any case.

It is quite clear that delays were happening long before the Auditor-General gave us a report. We did not know the nature of the causes, exactly, but I think that there were reasonable expectations that we would see a report late last year, and certainly reasonable expectations that we were going to see it in late January or February. When it continued not to appear, it was a pretty reasonable guess that there was some delay. The question of intent, I suppose, is not provable but, on reading the Auditor-General's report, it was further confirmed in my mind at least that the delays were becoming somewhat unreasonable and that we really needed to set about a process to guarantee that the report would come into this place in reasonable time.

On seeing the government's bill, I had two concerns. One concern was that the original bill as presented in the other place simply required that the report be given to the Speaker and the President. But, as it was not a report under the Government Finance and Audit Act, there was no guarantee that it would have actually become a public document: that would have then relied upon some other action of the parliament. I think that there should be no question that it is going to be a public document once it is delivered to the President and the Speaker. I understand that the opposition moved an amendment in the other place to address that issue and that that amendment was supported. The opposition had a couple of amendments: that is one that I had already asked parliamentary counsel to draft in any event, but the Labor Party successfully moved it in another place.

I also thought that the date of 31 October, in the circumstances, was pretty generous and I would have liked an earlier date-even a month earlier-but I have had discussions with representatives of the Labor Party and they are not going to offer support for that amendment. So, I will not waste the time of this Council pursuing it further, even though, as I said, the extra month, in my view, is extremely generous and will probably mean more taxpayers' money will be spent in the process.

There was another amendment that I think the Labor Party moved in the other place. I understand it is not moving it in this chamber and I will not, therefore, address that issue further. The Democrats support the second reading.