Page 2642 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, I strongly support the estimates committee recommendation regarding increased funding for the Auditor-General.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.50): Mr Speaker, have no doubt about it, what this government have done in real terms is cut the budget of the Auditor-General. What they have said is, “We cannot control her, so we will constrain her.” And that is not a government keeping their promise to be more honest, more open, more accountable. It is interesting that, beyond that, not only are they going to constrain the money that the Auditor-General has to spend, they are now going to seek to influence the inquiries that the auditor does.
When you go to page 11 of the government’s response, recommendation 14 states:
The Committee recommends that the Auditor-General’s funding allocation be increased to allow for the target number of performance audits to be reached without running a deficit … Not agreed.
“Auditor-General, cut back what you are doing because we do not like the scrutiny.” I will read the last paragraph of this section on page 11, for the benefit of members of this place:
The Government intends to seek external advice on a methodology to support the Auditor-General identifying and prioritising activities for the performance audit programs. Following consideration by the Government, this advice will be provided to the Public Accounts Committee for wider discussion.
“So not only are we unhappy, not only are we going to constrain, we are now going to seek to control the Auditor-General of the ACT because we do not like it when she holds us to account.”
The government needs to go back and actually read the Auditor-General Act 1996. I go to part 3, “Functions and Powers”, paragraph 9, “Independence”:
The auditor-general is not subject to direction by the Executive or any Minister in the exercise of the functions of the auditor-general.
I wonder how we view the comments from the Chief Minister on Friday when he got a report that was critical of his government and that he did not like. Instead of addressing the issues, instead of saying, “Okay, these are things we will look at and will discuss on basis of fact,” he simply shot the messenger. Beyond that, he then threatened the independence of the auditor. That is what he has done, have no doubt about it. The Chief Minister, the man who holds up civil liberties, the man who holds up human rights, the man who believes, supposedly, in legislating about free discussion, does not want a free discussion from the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General is independent. It is why her arrangements have her reporting to us through you, Mr Speaker, so that what the auditor does cannot be held back by a government that does not like the determinations of the auditor. I will read the section again—part 3, paragraph 9, “Independence”:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .