Page 1464 - Week 05 - Thursday, 12 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, as an overall reply to the Government's response, I must say that I am rather delighted that the Government has taken this report so seriously, has generally responded in a very positive way and has accepted the tone, the tenor and the direction of the report. That gives me some hope for trying to assist young people to go through that rite of passage from which this report takes its title.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - STANDING COMMITTEE
Report on Review of Auditor-General's Report No. 6 of 1992
Debate resumed from 16 June 1993, on motion by Ms Ellis:
That the report be noted.
Mr Kaine: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would just like to clarify something. You will note that with the earlier Public Accounts Committee report we cognately debated the Government's response to it. The Government has also responded to this report. I do not know the date of the response, but I have a copy of both the Chief Minister's tabling statement and the Government's response. I wonder whether we should debate the Government's response to this Public Accounts Committee report cognately with the report.
MADAM SPEAKER: We can do that only if the Government's response is actually on the notice paper. It is not, because it was simply tabled.
Mr Kaine: It seems to me that the Government's response is relevant.
Mr Moore: That is what we did with the report of the Drugs Select Committee. We responded to the Government's response. We did the two together. You can do it.
MADAM SPEAKER: The Government's response is not on the notice paper. Of course, it can be referred to, but there is no motion on the notice paper.
MR KAINE (11.36): This is an interesting case study. Members will note that this report covers the period to June 1992, so it gives us an opportunity to review the effectiveness of Auditor-General's reports and what happens to them. The Government has tabled a response to this report. I note that there is no date on either the Government's response or the Chief Minister's tabling statement; so, without going back through Hansard, I cannot determine when this response was made.
As an interesting case study, I would just like to follow through two matters in the Auditor-General's report. The report was a very comprehensive one that ranged across a large number of financial audits done during the year ended 30 June 1992. In fact, they were so extensive that 18 members of the audit staff were involved in these audits and five major contracting firms performed audits under contract. It was a very substantial
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .