Page 2663 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which was totally unrelated to the other figure, the previous figure to which it was reporting, and expected that to somehow meet their requirements for transparency and performance indication. The answer from Mr Stanhope went on to say:
As a new method for measuring timeliness was intended to be applied in 2008/09, ACTION and the Department agreed to amend the result of timeliness to 83%. In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate to leave the previous 99.8% figure and measure against that and report the result.
I repeat:
In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate to leave the previous 99.8% figure and measure against that and report the result.
It absolutely staggers me that there has to be some retrospective view. It staggers me that at the time it was not slightly odd that they were measuring something in a totally unrelated way. I find it absolutely staggering that this government would make such an error on a service that I believe takes a subsidy of around $70 million. It is a huge line item in the territory budget, a $70 million subsidy, and it is absolutely vital that the taxpayers get good value for money out of it.
In conclusion, the opposition are very concerned about the funding of the Auditor-General’s Office. We would like to see an Auditor-General’s Office that is properly funded and properly resourced so it can hold the government to account. I urge the government to reconsider this line item. I urge the government to put thought into how else they might be able to bring about the resources that the Auditor-General requires.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (12.03): We have heard many people speak on this item this morning, around the importance of the Auditor-General and the Auditor-General’s Office in providing scrutiny—investigating various areas and services delivered by government to ensure that they are being delivered efficiently and that they are the services that the people of the ACT need and want. This is incredibly important. The Auditor-General’s Office plays a vital role in the delivery of services—the scrutiny, the oversight of the services that are delivered.
This morning, we have been attacked by the Liberal opposition around our move that we will be supporting appropriation for the Auditor-General’s Office. It was a nonsense situation not to support funding for the Auditor-General’s Office. I am not sure if the suggestion there was that the Auditor-General should go with no funding in the next financial year.
Obviously, we have raised concerns about the sorts of new issues and work and the increase in workload that the Auditor-General has to deal with, particularly with implementing the international financial reporting standards, which has been quite a comprehensive body of work that has obviously impacted on the budget of the office and has not been bedded down. It will have an ongoing impact on the office and therefore there is a concern that the number of audits able to be conducted each year will have to drop in order to be able to continue that sort of work.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .