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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 715 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

that the definition of "public authority" does not include an administrative unit as these are basically the various departments as declared in the administrative arrangements under the Public Sector Management Act. There is a similar distinction in the Auditor-General Act, which refers to departments as distinct from territory entities.

The conclusion we have reached, which has been confirmed by the parliamentary drafters, is that the definition of "public authority" is very similar to but slightly broader than that of a territory entity in that the definition of "public authorities" includes statutory office holders and other statutory councils and boards. The difference of opinion I have with the Minister appears to relate primarily to whether subsidiary corporations and other corporations where the Government has an interest are covered under the Annual Reports Act. I do not think that this is such an issue because the Auditor-General is required to audit the annual reports of territory owned corporations and their subsidiaries anyway under the Territory Owned Corporations Act.

The question appears to be whether the Auditor-General would still be able to do performance audits of subsidiary corporations if this Bill were passed. This question really comes down to arguments over the legal meaning of the various definitions used in these Acts, which is always hard to resolve. It should also be noted that most of the subsidiaries included in the Minister's advice are subsidiaries of ACTEW. If the ACTEW/AGL merger goes ahead, the auditing arrangements for ACTEW and the very existence of these subsidiaries will, no doubt, be turned on its head.

I also have to question the Minister's advice because there appear to be some straight errors in it. The Minister mentioned in his speech that the Assembly Secretariat could no longer be performance audited under my Bill. However, section 20 of the Auditor-General Act states clearly that the Assembly Secretariat is regarded as a department for the purpose of audit and my Bill has no effect on the audits of departments. The advice also mentions Bruce Operations Pty Ltd, but I understand that its operations will be subsumed by the new stadiums authority, which would be covered under the definition of a public authority.

The Superannuation and Insurance Provision Unit was also mentioned as not being covered by my Bill. My understanding is that this unit is not a statutory authority, but a unit within the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure which would be covered as part of the ability of the Auditor-General to performance audit that department. I think that the people who are interested in supporting this legislation have understood that and are comfortable with it.

I will respond now to the other points that the Minister for the environment made in his response to this legislation. I must say that I was really disappointed with his response. The Minister for the environment was saying, basically, that this proposal involves more bureaucracy and we do not want to have to deal with that. That is a statement of value which is quite appalling from a Minister for the environment. What is the meaning of that statement? In annual reports we require agencies to report on particular issues - economic accountability, working within budget, outputs, whether services are being delivered and

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