Page 2705 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
year of comparatives. So there will be a bit of mucking around with variance explanations and management discussion and analysis reports.
It was identified by the committee that, furthermore, there will be similar issues with the auditing of accountability indicators. I think it behoves the government, and indeed the Assembly, to pay particular attention to that issue, and we will take particular note of that in the next estimates process. I am not sure whether I will be involved in that as directly as I have been this time.
In conclusion, I again call on the government to look at ways in which they can enhance the number of performance audits that can be conducted, to call on Katy Gallagher to put actions where her mouth is, essentially. If she is going to start talking about open and accountable government, you have to talk about these sorts of things. Rather than talking about tweeting, which is just fanciful, you have to talk about something that is substantive. She should look at how she can enhance the Auditor-General’s Office and, as the committee has recommended, look at ways we can make sure that we hang on to our staff, and make sure that we can provide the audit office with sufficient funds so that she—or whoever the next Auditor-General is—can provide a sufficient number of both financial and performance audits that will keep her government open and accountable, as she insists on.
In closing, I say again to Tu Pham, for her great service to the ACT: well done, and enjoy the next phase of your life.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.49): I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the work of Tu Pham. I think that she acquitted herself in a highly professional manner in exercising the job of Auditor-General. I think that the Assembly and the people of the ACT owe her a great debt of gratitude.
I think it is unfortunate that instead of seeing the Auditor-General as a partner, seeing I think a very effective and at times critical Auditor-General as a partner, the government saw her as an enemy. They very much did see her as an enemy. I think that is where the government actually miss the point. Whilst sometimes what the Auditor-General highlights can be embarrassing, the Auditor-General is a key partner in better governance. The Auditor-General is actually a key partner in improving the way that government delivers services to the community.
I think what needs to happen is that the government need to stop seeing it, firstly, just as a cost and, secondly, as a hindrance to the job they want to do. They are a partner. A robust Auditor-General who will ask hard questions, who will occasionally embarrass the government, is actually an asset, because if you are embarrassed once but you take on the recommendations and you apply them, you are unlikely to be embarrassed a second time in those areas.
Unfortunately, particularly in the delivery of projects, we see that the government has simply ignored the Auditor-General’s advice time and time again. At one level I understand why the government does not want to fund the Auditor-General properly, because it does not like the embarrassment, but it would be good for governance of the territory, it would be good for financial management of the territory, if it were to see the Auditor-General as a partner.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video