Page 2650 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
agencies were telling us about; we actually sought to impose savings on them. That is in recognition of the financial position that we find ourselves in because of the global financial crisis.
It is important also for the Assembly to acknowledge that in the past five budgets the Auditor-General’s budget has grown on average at 17 per cent per annum. In 2004-05 there was $1.254 million for capacity and cost funding which included two additional performance audit staff, external consultancy, and training and development.
There was also half a million dollars over four years for accommodation costs funded in the 2005-06 budget and in the 2006-07 budget, the budget where we sought enormous savings across government, the Auditor-General was provided with $2.076 million over four years for additional compliance and performance audit capacity. These funding increases were base adjustments and continue into the 2009-10 budget and, indeed, continue into the forward estimate.
Whilst we accept that in this case the Auditor-General has put forward a case that there is budget pressure on her organisation, we believe—certainly it is the view of my department—that the bids around complying with new auditing standard APES 320 are one-off in nature and that they should have no significant ongoing impact. The Treasury view is that there were initial setup costs to comply with the new standards and some higher externally provided auditor costs, but these should not have an ongoing impact on the Auditor-General’s budget.
I think also in the operating statement before the Auditor-General you will see that total revenue to the Auditor-General is expected to increase in the order of about $100,000—it is $90,000 from the estimated outcome. We are not seeking to impose the efficiency dividend. In terms of the view of Treasury, we would be very happy to work with the Auditor-General, not in any way of seeking to restrict or direct the Auditor-General’s activities but to ensure that the Auditor-General is able to perform the role that she plays, the very important role, within the funding envelope that this territory can afford at this point in time.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.19): We proved last week that a week is a long time in politics. I thought it was interesting to note that on Tuesday the Minister for Multicultural Affairs stood in this place and extolled the great benefits that have accrued to the ACT from the refuge that we have given to waves of refugees over time. I was waiting for it and it came. There was the Minister for Multicultural Affairs listing amongst those people the current Auditor-General who had come here as a refugee many years ago.
I have worked with the current Auditor-General in many guises, both as a member of this place and previously as a staff adviser to the Treasurer when the current Auditor-General was the Commissioner for ACT Revenue and at times the Under Treasurer. I have nothing but the highest regard for her integrity, her professionalism and her capacity.
But it was a very short week because by last Friday the people of the ACT witnessed the most outrageous, threatening, bullying attack on the Auditor-General by the Chief
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .