Page 2648 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I know that Ms Pham takes it seriously. I know that she looks every year at her expenditure. I know that there are difficulties for her in keeping staff, retaining staff in a market that is particularly tight and where the commonwealth is consuming a lot of the resources. But what she points out is that she can give us a better return.
It is interesting that last year we heard in public hearings that there was something like 75 potential performance audits. And during this year’s estimates hearing, what we heard was that that list is now closer to 100. Eight 12s are 96. Twelve years worth of work is already on the books for the auditor on teams that she thinks potentially should be audited. But it will not happen. It will take twice that time. And who knows how long that list will be.
The Auditor-General’s appropriation in this year’s budget is inappropriate. It should be increased to at least maintain last year’s level. Ideally, what should have been done is that it should have been increased to ensure that more could be done towards—(Time expired.)
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.10): I rise simply to reflect briefly on the comments that have already been made by a number of members. I was quite concerned by the reported reaction of the Chief Minister last Friday to the Auditor-General’s report on the Ambulance Service. I thought the Auditor-General provided a very comprehensive report. I think it was a valuable report in terms of highlighting some of the potential areas of concern and ways to improve the Ambulance Service. I welcome the report from the Auditor-General because I think it is comprehensive; it is considered.
I think it is important to note that the Auditor-General’s process is to draft a report and then go back to the relevant agency to seek their feedback, to make sure the Auditor-General has not got it wrong, has not misunderstood something. That agency is given a chance to further comment on the Auditor-General’s initial findings. So I was quite concerned by the Chief Minister’s reaction to sort of conflate the issue of a critical report and the issue of funding for the Auditor-General’s Office.
I think it is interesting to note that, in the Auditor-General’s response, the relevant department actually concurred with many of the findings. I am yet to look at absolutely all of them but there was certainly a strong sense that the department was taking the issues on board. So it is interesting to draw that distinction between the Chief Minister’s reaction and the reaction of the department. I think that we actually had a confirmation on Friday of the approach of the government. It is a preference for shooting the messenger rather than looking at the substance of the matter. We saw it a couple of times last week. We saw a spectacular example here in the chamber and we saw a further example with the Auditor-General. I think that is unfortunate.
I note the government’s comments in their response to the estimates committee. Mr Smyth and, I think, Ms Le Couteur have already touched on the issue of seeking external advice and basically looking at it. I do not know what the term is but there is an implicit threat to the Auditor-General, it feels, in that paragraph. While I would like to think that is not the government’s intention in that comment—and I am sure
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .