Page 2437 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
better position to provide more resources to the Auditor-General’s Office. I believe that the structural changes to departments and government being precipitated by this budget will be greatly aided and potentially less damaging if the Auditor-General is able to have a good look and the problems can be identified before they become crises.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (12.17): The Auditor-General is faced with a difficult task, I would put to the Assembly today, in prioritising which proposals for audit are put before the organisation and how responsive such a proposed audit should be. It is evident that this organisation could not be fully resourced to respond to all calls for independent audits to be conducted in a full and frank manner by itself.
Whilst it could be argued that the Auditor-General is well-resourced compared to other states and territories, we have limited bodies to conduct other forms of scrutiny here in the ACT. I note that the recent audit into public housing, for example, was overall very comprehensive and provided the Stanhope government with a real wake-up call about the current and likely parlous state of service delivery of public housing in the ACT.
However, in another matter in relation to a public interest disclosure, I know that the Auditor-General was under enormous pressure to firstly deal with that in a timely manner and then to do as full and comprehensive audit of that PID as she would have perhaps liked.
As I have said, the territory does not have other forms of independent scrutiny at its disposal. We have an absolute majority government, now quite possibly burdened with the responsibility to consider policy and financial decisions very carefully. There is no real form of scrutiny of this government now in the Assembly. It can simply use its majority to force through any given agenda, be it here in the main chamber or through our committee system if it so chooses.
It will remain a strong commitment of the Liberal opposition to highlight that this is one of the only organisations that has the ability to offer independent assessment of ACT government portfolios. It should be provided with the optimal amount of resources, not only the financial element but also well-trained and adequately supported staff to conduct the research, assessment and presentation of comprehensive audits of public importance.
It should be of grave concern, I believe, to the Canberra community if such an organisation is not sufficiently resourced to carry out comprehensive assessments of ACT government portfolios. It is pleasing to hear and note the Chief Minister’s comments on that. Maybe in next year’s budget we will see an increased level of funding for this department again so they can do even more audits and carry out more scrutiny.
Some may question that just under $2 million in this budgetary year is adequate, but the question remains as to just how many individual audits the Auditor-General and supporting staff can carry out in order to maintain a rigorous and vigilant watch of the operations of the ACT government.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .