Page 2435 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is always a challenge for an opposition in the environment of an austere budget where there are some critical services being slashed, people facing possible loss of employment and agencies being wound back. It presents something of a quandary between the importance of accountability and transparency in government and the funds one needs to inject to ensure that at the same time essential services in government are delivered efficiently and at the maximum percentage possible, especially in areas such as health, education, infrastructure and public safety, to mention just a few.
It is not appropriate for me, I do not believe, to share discussions on the budget of the Auditor-General and the deliberations of public accounts. I know that rule has been transgressed here on occasions in other situations, but it is not appropriate to get into the detail of the recommendations we made to the territory or to the Treasurer in that area.
My thinking is somewhat coloured in relation to the way in which we do the budget for the Auditor-General with the facts I have put to you. I suppose one struggles a bit with the allocations that go to major accounting firms. They charge, and their hourly billing rate is obviously substantial. To quote the Auditor-General from estimates, she indicated as follows:
In the last two years, we did not spend money on consultancy for performance audits, so there is no consultancy fee there. For financial audits, we entered into contracts on a three-year basis with four or five big accounting firms, and the total fee for contractors last year, in 2004-05, was $620,000.
Then, later on, in another situation the Auditor-General said that there were three audits currently in place and they expected them to be tabled shortly. I know you do not want a place staffed to the maximum when there are periods of changing work flow, and I am sure the Auditor-General’s Office weigh all that and take it into account when they enter into these contracts.
I know they are also constantly challenged by their difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified staff. That was partially addressed last year in the budget process. I would love to see a better way than seeing $620,000 outlaid for major accounting firms. I have a lot of friends in those firms and I wish them well, but I would like to see a situation where more of that can be met within the Auditor-General’s budget.
That may be something that gets looked at in more detail down the track. As I said, I have great faith in the management expertise in that office. I do not have any fundamental problems with the individual allocation here, but I am flagging matters there that warrant further consideration in the period ahead.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (12.12): I agree essentially with the remarks the shadow Treasurer has just made in relation to the Auditor-General’s Office and the functions of the Auditor-General. The shadow Treasurer has indicated the importance of this particular function. The government, through this budget, gives added recognition to the importance of the Auditor-General, particularly in relation to improving both the audit and the investigative capacity of the Auditor-General’s Office.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .