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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3826 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

budget. The Auditor-General already has access to cabinet papers when he investigates financial decision-making. For example, in the investigation of the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium there are a substantial number of quotes from and references to cabinet submissions. So that access is not new. What is new is the provision relating to the attention to be given to the financial modelling underlying budget forecasts.

This bill already enables the Auditor-General to investigate the reliability of the budget and new and updated budget reports. This provision, which involves additional technical expertise, will require additional staff in the Auditor-General's office. A question of concern to the Greens is whether we will be getting useful new information. On one level it is useful to have an independent check on financial modelling. On another level, though, we have to consider whether putting additional resources and energy into an independent review of financial modelling is the best way to improve our budgetary system.

In the estimates committee process we are able to question ministers about programs that are to be funded and we are able to determine the results of priorities. However, we are also given an opportunity to question ministers about financial assumptions and models. I am aware of the argument that there is no independent source to test assumptions or to establish the truth of the figures up-front. In the end, however, there is still a full audit of what money was spent and how it was spent. It has been argued that that is not necessarily the truth as the money is coming from Treasury, but it is in this area that the Auditor-General's office currently has the expertise. I thought that the point of this exercise was to enable the Auditor-General to check the government's expenditure.

I do not know whether I fully understand this amendment, as it does not appear to propose any new way of ensuring actual expenditure. In addition, no-one seems clear about what work this new power would involve. There is evidence from Victoria, but it is only anecdotal. We have not yet heard from parliamentarians what is their assessment of the value of this work, nor has there been a review of the effects of the Victorian system. I would prefer that investigation to be conducted before the government introduces this new system. I would also prefer to have resources spent on improving the formation of the budget and determining what matters are considered important.

Mr Smyth's amendment focuses only on the fiscal side of the budget. If we introduce something like this in the future it would be better if we included an assessment of triple bottom-line reporting. I would prefer to see an investment in the capacity of a government to deliver a budget that has been constructed on the basis of ecological sustainability-a budget that analysed the gender impacts of these programs. This bill should be analysed by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts before we make any decision about changing the role of the Office of the Auditor-General

The technical expertise involved in examining forecasts and modelling assumptions is different from the expertise that is required for auditing actual expenditure and results. This amendment would require the employment of between four and six additional skilled staff in the Office of the Auditor-General at a cost of about $200,000. If that were the government's first priority to improve the budgetary system in the ACT, the costs of increasing staff would not be a problem. As the basis for all executive government work the budget is fundamentally important. Adequate scrutiny of its reliability is also

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