Page 2225 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It seems to me that we have expert auditors precisely to be able to assess what information is important and what is not, to test processes and procedures and to ensure that the matters of concern are highlighted in their report to management. Of course, if auditors cannot be trusted to distinguish between important information and information that adds no value, then we must wonder why we have auditors at all.
Mr Sheville estimated that this change would lead to increases in the costs of audits of some 10 to 30 per cent, although he suspected that cost increases would be towards the lower end of this range. Of course, even a 10 per cent cost increase is worrying if it is solely in order to include information which the auditor regards as being without value.
Given the staffing difficulties that are continuing to face the Auditor-General’s office, there is also a serious question as to whether auditors should be spending additional time compiling information that they believe is of no value. These are valuable staff and their time is valuable. From my observation here in three years, that office fulfils an important function at a very high level and to a very high standard. We need not make their life more difficult, if it is at all possible. Far from adding to the audit reports, there is a danger that additional information will detract from the reports, making it more difficult for those reading the reports to determine the fundamental findings.
In another area, the issue of the failure of government to implement recommendations is equally as important as having those matters identified by the Auditor-General. The problems are particularly worrying in light of the government’s failure to properly implement many of the recommendations that have resulted from performance audits. In its June 2007 report, Agency implementation of audit recommendations, the Auditor-General’s office found many agencies wanting in this area. The audit opinion was:
Overall, current review and reporting arrangements adopted by the agencies are not adequate to provide assurance to the Government and the Assembly that recommendations arising from performance audit reports are implemented consistently across agencies and in a timely manner.
That opinion is to be found on page 3 of the report. On the same page the audit opinion continues:
The lack of commitment by a number of agencies to implement agreed Audit recommendations will expose the Government to continued risks associated with the deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the audited areas.
This situation is further confirmed by the Auditor-General in estimates hearings on 18 June. After discussing certain departments which had implemented recommendations, she went on to say:
In other departments there was a serious lack of attention to recommendations, especially to whole-of-government issues. When we do cross-agency performance audits, normally the recommendations are very much at a whole-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .