Page 2656 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in the appropriation bill and whether that is adequate. Certainly, although under the act she is independent one has to question that independence in light of the comments that have been made by Mr Stanhope. Indeed, Mr Rattenbury did highlight the effect that Mr Stanhope’s words will have on that process and on the ability of the department to respond effectively, now that the Chief Minister has had his go, to the recommendations in the Auditor-General’s response.
The estimates report clearly outlines, and Mr Seselja covered it in some detail, the effect that the appropriation bill will have on the Auditor-General’s ability to do her job. What it means is that there is going to be a reduction in the number of audits that she can conduct, from eight to six. So, at a time when we need to be more scrupulous with our money, when we need to be looking to where we can make savings, to be making sure that all of our agencies are as efficient as they can be and are delivering the services to the community that we need, what we find is that the number of audits that will be provided is going to be cut. That is the result of this bill.
I turn now to the issue of independence and the issue that has been raised about the Chief Minister’s comments. I read from the editorial in the Canberra Times today:
Stanhope’s reaction to criticism by the Audit Office should be to defend his administration’s record, not to attack the bearer of the bad news. Who else is going to ride shotgun on the internal operations of government bodies, if not the independent Audit Office?
All areas of government must deliver value for money and all agencies are under increased pressure due to the global financial crisis. This arguably makes the Auditor-General’s role even more important.
It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, that the Audit Office receive more funding to carry out its crucial role of scrutinising government expenditure.
A robust democracy needs a robust auditing process. No government wants to hear the bad news—
certainly not the Stanhope government—
but rigorous analysis of spending will lead to better outcomes for all.
That is what members have been saying today in their speeches. What have we seen here? We have seen a government, true to form—in particular with the Chief Minister—whose only form of defence is attack. We are all used to it here—when we make comments in this Assembly or in the media that are negative about the government, we can expect to be attacked, and attacked ruthlessly. But I do not think any of us expected the sort of attack that has played out against the Auditor-General, someone who up until Friday apparently had the backing of everybody in this place, someone whose independence was not questioned. But now, unfortunately, because of Mr Stanhope’s inference, his threat, clearly it can be.
Everybody in the community I think has read it as a threat—there are other letters in the Canberra Times, the crossbench, the Liberals. Just about everybody I have spoken
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .