Page 1952 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (5.07): Madam Speaker, Auditor-General's reports for the last couple of years, and particularly this one, No. 6 of 1992, have contained serious criticism of financial systems and procedures, and it really is time that we saw some progress. Certainly, a number of the people who appeared before the committee - - -
Mr Berry: What sort of progress would you like to see?
MRS CARNELL: I think the Auditor-General has made it quite clear, Mr Berry. Obviously, the Auditor-General has made it clear that the time has come when progress desperately needs to be made. It is totally unacceptable for audited financial statements not to be completed before 31 December of the following financial year. For the 1991-92 financial year only 11 of the 31 agencies achieved the proposed legislative reporting requirement of 30 September. It is certainly true that a number of the agencies suggested that this year it would be better, and it certainly has improved over the last couple of years; but obviously a lot of improvement is still to be achieved.
The lack of Fiscal functionality for credit cards was of great interest to the committee. We were somewhat bemused to find that the officials who appeared before us seemed to have no knowledge of actually how many credit cards were out in the system. The reasons for that were many. I think it is important that we do blame Fiscal for a lot of those problems. Certainly, the widening use of personal computers to overcome perceived and actual deficiencies in Fiscal is a cause for great concern. Another issue that the Public Accounts Committee is looking at is the area of information technology. The fact that agencies will be required to report supplementary information on assets and liabilities which will be audited from 1991 to 1992 will further potentially delay the tabling of financial statements. If the Treasury guidelines for the definition and valuation of assets are not available until the end of the 1992-93 financial year, it is difficult not to see delays in the tabling of financial statements, given the nature of some of the assets of these agencies. I think Ms Ellis already spoke about the real difficulties that the committee faced, or that the people appearing before the committee faced, in terms of assets and assets registers.
It is clear from the Auditor-General's report that quite serious deficiencies in management and financial control have occurred and this, at the end of the day, must reflect upon the Government. For instance, the audit dealing with ACTEW, relating to the payments of allowances to employees, indicated overpayments of some magnitude. I think Ms Ellis did go over this quite well; but still, when the Auditor-General has said that potential savings of some $250,000 per annum and up to possibly $300,000 per annum could have been achieved, obviously something has to be done. I know that the committee was very interested in ACTEW's comments in the Auditor-General's report. ACTEW said that the practice was relatively common within the authority and that it also occurs in other areas of the ACT Government Service, such as the Department of Urban Services and the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning. The committee was very clear in its view that this sort of approach is just not good enough. The Auditor-General then went on to say:
It appears that management from both ACTEW and the ACT Government have been aware of this situation for a substantial period of time and have not promptly taken effective remedial action.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .