Page 18 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
criteria should identify when, how and what is required of proponents in relation to issues such as: a business case; financial analysis; a statement of financial and other risks, with appropriate risk allocation and mitigation measures; environmental and health impacts; planning approvals; a plan for appropriate consultation with the general community; and identifiable stakeholders; and coordination arrangements.
Going to paragraph 3.6 of the report, it states:
Almost all of these requirements were missing from the proposal that was submitted to the Government and which it strongly supported. The Committee is concerned that senior officials behaved in such a manner without having the factual basis to back up the claims. It is extremely poor process for the Government to support a project where no business case was received, the analysis provided was not accepted by Treasury, there was no clarity concerning the makeup of the consortium and the scope of the project continually changed.
That is a damning indictment of a government and how it does business. You did not get the data you required to make an informed decision. Treasury brought it to your attention that you did not have that data to make suggestions, which was ignored. A DA was submitted without the full financial backup analysis to clarify that it should proceed. It is only later in the process when the community and the opposition have held the government to account that the project is scaled down because it does not make commercial sense. That is a damning indictment of the government. That is why the recommendation says that you must have a complete business case before these projects go ahead.
There are 18 recommendations in all from the committee. I have added a few of my own. CPR made a very strong comment about the role of the Auditor-General in their submission. We now have a Chief Minister who is notorious, when he gets a bad report from the Auditor-General, for attacking that office and casting aspersions on that office and the use of resources. The final comment I would like to make relates to a quote from CPR:
CPR … recommends that the Auditor-General be given greater funding and greater authority to audit, inspect and implement recommendations.
In my additional comments I say:
I endorse the conclusion reached by CPR that: “The importance of the Auditor-General and her role can not be under-estimated within the governance system Canberra currently labours under.
The second of my recommendations is that the Auditor-General receives extra resources as appropriate. My third recommendation is that a bill to make this place responsible for sending the budget to the Auditor-General should be passed when it comes back to this place for discussion.
This is a thorough and comprehensive report. I would like to thank those who made the effort to put it together for the committee. We had two committee secretaries at that time. One has gone on leave to do some study and I wish her well. Glenn, who has joined us in Andrea’s place, has done a sterling job on a big report into a major
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video