Page 2660 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to be to run down the Auditor-General’s Office and attack the Auditor-General personally when it does not like the findings? Clearly, it could only be a government that is so defensive and so aware of its own flaws that it does not want to hear them ever exposed. It does not ever want any sunlight on the situation, any transparency, and the Auditor-General represents that.
The Auditor-General can actually do something that virtually no-one else can do, and that is to go into departments and find out what is going on. It is very difficult for anyone else to get an insight as to what is going on inside government. Unfortunately, with this government we cannot be there for every poor decision that they make behind the scenes—and there are many—for every contract that they sign without getting value for money and every action that they take that does not deliver quality services to the people of Canberra and does not effectively and efficiently use taxpayers’ money. But the Auditor-General, to the extent that the office is resourced, has a unique ability to go in and improve those processes, to help improve some of that decision making going forward. All it takes is for the government to have an attitude of welcoming the input and not attacking the Auditor-General for her findings.
We saw, I think, an interesting exchange in relation to ACTION and some of the timeliness figures in relation to the Auditor-General. When ACTION got caught out—and Mr Coe might touch on this if he is going to speak to the Auditor-General—with their efficiency measure not being particularly effective and not being well explained, they blamed the Auditor-General. ACTION said, “The Auditor-General told us to do this.” In fact, the estimates committee got correspondence from the Auditor-General which said that was not the case. In fact, I stand to be corrected. I am not aware that the actual proper clarification on this issue that the estimates committee sought has been forthcoming.
But it is indicative of the government’s attitude to the Auditor-General. They do not see it as something that can improve outcomes, they do not see it as something that can help them improve efficiencies. Instead they see the Auditor-General as an enemy. They label her as an enemy and threaten to take her funding because they do not like what she says. That is a very poor reflection on this government. It is a very poor reflection, particularly, on the Chief Minister. I am not surprised that Mr Corbell in particular has been about to stand up a couple of times but he has not quite been able to bring himself to do it. He is perhaps waiting for a moment in the debate when he cannot be rebutted. We look forward to his input and his defence of the Chief Minister’s comments, because I do not think Ms Gallagher addressed that.
Will anyone else in the government defend the Chief Minister’s comments on this issue? Does anyone in this executive actually agree with the Chief Minister’s view that we should be looking to cut the Auditor-General and cut the Auditor-General’s funding because they do not like the outcome? Does anyone here want to stand up in solidarity with the Chief Minister on that point, or is he isolated within his cabinet? I see Mr Hargreaves is raring to go. I look forward to him defending the Chief Minister on this, so we can have two ministers on the record who believe that attacking the Auditor-General and veiled threats about funding is the appropriate response when an Auditor-General finds against a government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .