Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3795 ..

MS McRAE: Mr Speaker, in concluding the debate, I want to bring attention again to the issues that the Auditor-General raised. Since they have not really been dealt with in detail, I thought that I would refer to them just to make sure that they are on the record. The Auditor-General noted, as did the committee, that the budget papers included a caveat to the effect that the actuals used as comparative figures are unaudited and may be subject to some change. We noted that; but there were further problems that we knew were the subject of correspondence between departments and the Auditor-General in terms of the costs of goods and/or services provided by departments to other departments free of charge being included in the financial statements but not in the budget papers; capital injections or distributions being treated differently in the budget papers and the financial statements; and the accounting treatments for some other transactions being different in the financial statements and the budget papers.

We were well aware, and we were made aware through discussion with the Auditor-General and officers of OFM, that these matters were the subject of correspondence and further negotiation between the Auditor-General and various departments. I think it is very important that the Assembly does not lose sight of the fact that there are profound problems and, no matter what gloss you put on them, these problems are still being negotiated and these adjustments will be effected through the ownership agreements tabled in the Assembly. This budget has not come without some cost, and the cost is that we have budget papers that need adjustment.

What was clear to the Assembly's Estimates Committee was that this process has been a hurried one. It has been one that has been done with very minimal resources, and it has put enormous strains on departments. We accepted in faith, in the end, the compromise that was agreed to. We accepted the idea that these budget papers will be adjusted in good time. But I do not want it to be lost that the committee was concerned that this level of error should still be in budget papers. Some of them are audited and some of them are unaudited. That is not the problem. It is these other issues that have been raised. I think it is very important that the Assembly does not lose sight of those criticisms and those concerns.

Various comments have been made about the estimates process next year and how we should or should not do it. I have no quarrel with Mr Kaine saying that the Public Accounts Committee has a charter. I interjected at the time, much to his chagrin. I apologise; it is not very pleasant being interjected upon. But the point is that, in previous times, when we have had an early budget, there has been a second estimates process. So, it is not written in stone that the Public Accounts Committee should look further at the second round of annual reports and other expenditure.

Mrs Carnell: But it is not written in stone that they should not, either.

MS McRAE: That is quite right, Mrs Carnell; it is not written in stone that they should not. But I do think that that is something that the Assembly should have a good look at and consider the implications of before we make a decision one way or the other. The main problem is that next year, when we do have an early budget, we will again be confronted with the problem of unaudited accounts; so we will be dealing with budget papers that then may well be subject to further modification and changes once the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .