Page 870 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We now have the Treasurer saying, “We are going to reform the finances and we are going to report even better.” In the 2005-06 budget, the ACT changed to what was meant to be the system that is described as government finance statistics, GFS. But if you look at it, you see that what we get is not the truth. We actually get the Stanhope modified version of GFS. Mr Deputy Speaker, governance is not a word with which this Chief Minister is acquainted.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.06): I thank Mr Stefaniak for this motion. We have already had a good airing of the problems, real and confected, with accounting for credit card transactions by public servants, and I welcome the government’s acknowledgment that this is a problem, which it is. But I also note the relatively minor amounts involved as a percentage of all public service credit card transactions. While this issue is largely a matter for administrative attention, it does highlight what seem to be a couple of more systemic governance deficiencies that will undoubtedly grow into more serious problems if left unresolved.
First, there is an issue with poor accounting practices in some agencies. At present, this problem does not seem to be especially serious, but, despite the Chief Minister’s attempt to portray the Liberals’ attack as symptomatic of a slow news and no ideas day, their concerns do have some substance. I hope the government is putting in place measures to ensure that all agencies are able to properly account for their expenditures.
The second governance deficiency highlighted by the credit card issue is that of poor governance oversight in some agencies. Rhodium Asset Solutions was a classic case where the existing governance procedures were totally inadequate. Despite the Chief Minister’s reflexive support for his senior executives, the facts speak for themselves. If a board fails to notice all the dodgy things that went on in Rhodium, that board has failed in its duty. But, by always denying any wrongdoing and selling off the offending business or abolishing the offending board or agency, the government never faces up to the root issue, which is a shortcoming in governance processes.
Only by facing up to these issues and developing, through trial and error, best-practice governance procedures will any government develop the expertise, the experience and the accounting system which will enable it to recognise problems before they occur—and this is the mark of good management and good government. The Labor Party’s code of good government is a good benchmark. It is very impressive. But it shows how far this government has travelled since taking power. It is an idealistic document. It is an aspirational document. It is a worthy document against which actions should be checked from time to time. I urge the Liberal Party to come out with a similar document, to let the electorate know the values and initiatives it will pursue if it wins government, either in its own right or with the support of a future cross bench.
To give credit where it is due, the government has delivered on a fair few of its commitments in the code, but in a number of areas its deviation from the ideals espoused in the code is growing larger, and that appears to be a result of being unable to resist the temptations of using its majority power to dispense with the collaborative approach to open government, which it championed so strongly in opposition. When I hear Mr Hargreaves benchmarking this government’s performance against the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .