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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 864 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The issues raised in the report are significant. A somewhat laissez-faire attitude towards the collection of fines has meant that offenders have been under no significant pressure to meet their obligations and the administration of the law is subject to some risk of coming into disrepute as a result. The amounts in unpaid fines are also significant. As late as February this year about $1.67m in fines was outstanding. The committee is concerned with the delay in drawing in these revenues at a time when the ACT is under considerable financial strain. Following comment provided by the Minister, the committee is generally satisfied that action either has been taken or in most cases is under way to address the shortcomings identified by the audit. The committee's recommendations are intended to ensure that the reforms which at the time of the report were not yet put in place are acted upon.

This leads me to draw the Assembly's attention to the way in which the Minister has dealt with the committee in this case. As I mentioned earlier, the audit report was presented on 16 May last year. The committee is charged with the responsibility of reviewing all reports of the Auditor-General presented to the Assembly as part of its review process. The committee requests comment from the relevant Minister on the audit report. In 1995 the Chief Minister took the initiative of formally advising the committee that, as part of her Government's commitment to be more responsive to audit recommendations, the Government would present to the committee a coordinated response to each audit report within three months of the report being tabled.

In this case the Minister appears to have had considerable difficulty in meeting the Government's commitment in responding to the committee on what is really in many respects a relatively straightforward audit. Despite approaches at officer level and a further formal approach to the Minister in November 1996, that is six months later, it was not until late February 1997 that the Minister acknowledged the matter, and then only to blame officials in his department for the delay. The Minister's substantive comment on the audit was received by the committee only on 11 March 1997.

Irrespective of the Government's policy on responses to audit reports, the committee expects Ministers to be alert to the Assembly's desire that this committee not be frustrated in fulfilling its responsibilities given to it by the Assembly. The committee expects that Ministers will comment to the committee on audit reports as soon as is practicable, and certainly within the relatively generous three-month time limit which the Chief Minister has imposed on herself and her Ministers.

The committee strongly affirms its view that it is the responsibility of the Minister to ensure that responses to the committee in relation to audit reports are timely and in accordance with Government policy. It is ironic that a Minister who makes so much of criticising others about attacks on public servants should resort to an attack on a public servant to cover his own failure to respond in a timely manner in this case. I commend the committee's report to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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