Page 4711 - Week 15 - Thursday, 16 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be able to agree on what we mean by major plant and equipment when we seek to purchase it. To the extent that there is a difference, we believe that that needs to be resolved. Perhaps it is a matter for the Treasurer herself to get involved in and make sure that people clearly understand what they are dealing with.
The Auditor-General was satisfied with the processing of the HRMS. So are we, except that the Auditor-General noted that there may be some difficulty in achieving the projected savings in connection with that project. It is an area that the Government may need to look at closely to ensure that the benefits, the pay-offs, that were expected in going ahead with this project are in fact achieved.
The final matter, Madam Speaker, is Auditor-General's report No. 7 of 1993, and that was the annual management report in connection with the Audit Office itself. The Auditor-General made a couple of points that we would ask the Government to look at. The first had to do with audit fees and the suggestion that the Auditor-General may be able to charge fees for financial statement audits that he does. The Government has apparently rejected that proposal from him. The committee sees some merit in the Auditor-General being able to charge fees for this service. If the service was not being provided by the Auditor-General it would have to be bought and paid for from a commercial auditor no doubt. It would allow the Auditor-General to have a source of income to offset costs so that his office would not be funded just by a budget appropriation; he would be justifying his existence by the services that he provided and how much those services were considered to be worth by the people whose books he was auditing.
The other point had to do with audit legislation. We note with some concern at paragraph 7.9 the Auditor-General's comments in relation to the delays in the development of new legislation to replace the Audit Act 1989. The Auditor-General's report states that it is expected that that new legislation will be enacted in 1993-94, but we also note that in public hearings held in connection with the earlier inquiry into the matters raised in audit report No. 5 of 1992 the Treasury advised that the legislation was not expected to be completed until June 1994. There seems to be some lack of urgency on the part of the Treasury in addressing this issue. It is important legislation. It is required legislation. Yet it seems to be taking an inordinate number of years to bring forward some drafts in connection with that new legislation. We would like to see some greater emphasis placed on it.
Madam Speaker, all in all, there are six comprehensive reports. There was not a lot that the Auditor-General was dissatisfied with. We do not, by and large, disagree with the Auditor-General's comments on those matters. In concluding, Madam Speaker, I would simply like to commend our committee secretary, Karin Malmberg. This report is the result of a great deal of work, and most of the work in connection with it was done at the same time as she was the secretary of the Estimates Committee - a very demanding job. Yet she performed her responsibilities in connection with the Estimates Committee admirably and, at the same time, kept work going on all of these matters that the Public Accounts Committee was looking at. I believe that she deserves to be commended for that.
Debate (on motion by Ms Ellis) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .