Page 2336 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The time available for estimates committee processes, annual reports and the like, is fairly contained. We would like to hear some form of explanation from the Treasurer—and it was a rather late reply we received, after the Auditor-General appeared, to say that they were knocking back these funds—as to why this absolutely critical function of government is being denied the required resources which, again, are relatively modest in the scheme of things. It seems that some of these modest but critical resource needs are constantly rejected by the Treasurer.
The opposition believes that that committee recommendation should have been supported. Obviously I am not in a position to make an amendment, based on your ruling, Mr Speaker. I would have amended that area but it cannot be done. I certainly hope that the sentiment conveyed by an all-party committee recommendation will be more appropriately considered by the Treasurer and the resources found to support the critical functions of the Auditor-General’s Office.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.58): Like Mr Mulcahy, I am also concerned at the rejection of the Auditor-General’s continual requests to the ACT government for more staffing funding. Nonetheless, I acknowledge the office’s delight in its new premises. I am pleased that there has been some progress in the office’s fortunes this year. The Auditor-General stated in the estimates hearings that her office needs three additional performance audit staffers to allow for an additional three major audits per year, plus two or three different types of reviews and investigations. It appears difficult for the Auditor-General’s Office, at this point in time, to deliver services beyond its statutory obligations, which of course must be a matter of priority. Issues such as public interest disclosures are becoming unachievable for the office due to its limited staffing.
As a member of the public accounts committee perhaps I had more opportunity than other members of the Assembly to study the Auditor-General’s reports in some detail. I have to say that they provide an expert, useful analysis of areas of governance that the government is unable, or unwilling, to examine.
I am concerned that the ACT government is limiting the ability of the Auditor-General to analyse the report on government operations. By so doing the ACT government is, in effect, limiting its own level of accountability and transparency to the public. This matter has been highlighted through the estimates committee’s report and in the public accounts committee’s recommendations. I hope the government will respond in a responsible manner to this issue and consider providing extra staffing to the Auditor-General’s Office in the next round of appropriations.
MS MacDONALD (Brindabella) (12.00): I agree with the assessment by Mr Mulcahy that the Auditor-General provides a valuable role and that its role is to scrutinise the functions of government. From the way Mr Mulcahy was speaking, though, one would think this will no longer be done if the Auditor-General’s Office does not get the additional three performance auditors requested. Certainly the public accounts committee did make the recommendation, as it is required to do; it looked at the budget bid by the audit office; and we put in a letter of support for that to the Treasurer. That was unanimous, and I am not denying that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .