Page 2703 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Auditor-General”. We heard that there was a 26 to 30 per cent turnover each year. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this, but certainly one reason for this is salaries. Our understanding is that the salaries paid in the ACT Auditor-General’s Office are less than those paid in the private, big-four firms and less than those paid in the National Audit Office. While obviously it is performing a public service to train auditors and performance auditors in the ACT Auditor-General’s Office, it would also be nice to not only train them but to keep them.
So I have to say that I heartily agree with the estimates committee’s recommendations with respect to the Auditor-General’s funding and I very much hope that this is looked at in subsequent budgets because it is important. I would like to see the Auditor-General’s Office well funded.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (5.40): It gives me great pleasure to talk to the Auditor-General’s line. It is a very important function of our democracy in the ACT. I would like at the outset to congratulate Tu Pham on her long period of service as Auditor-General which came to a close this year, and also commend Mr Bernie Sheville, who has been working very well in her stead.
I think it was disappointing that a replacement for Tu Pham could not have been identified somewhat sooner. The timing of her retirement should not have been a surprise to the government. It seemed odd that we would have had this lag in the appointment of such a vital position within the ACT, and I echo what Mr Smyth said there. It is disappointing that that appointment could not have been decided on earlier.
I was also surprised at the funding levels for the Auditor-General. I think it is well understood and well established that the number of audits, both financial and performance, that the Auditor-General can conduct will result in great enhancements within the performance of the unit and also make good recommendations as to where money can be better spent. In these days of austerity, any opportunity to do that is welcome.
I note that next year there will be only six audits conducted. I think that is a shame. I think there is a great desire not just from my side of the Assembly but from others, the Greens, that there should be an increase. I quote from the estimates report on this:
The issue of the number of performance audits conducted annually by the Audit Office was raised by the committee. The Committee was told that it is likely that only six performance audits would be undertaken during the coming financial year. This is less than has been the case in previous years, and the Committee is of the opinion that this is entirely unsatisfactory.
That led to recommendation 194 in the report:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provides a funding path which will allow the number of performance audits to be increased by two per year over the next five years.
But it is no great surprise to me that Katy Gallagher and her government would not want that to occur because, despite the rhetoric about more open and accountable government, it seems that really all she wants in a substantive way is more Twitter,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video