Page 2819 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Those are the facts; that is the history of this government’s response and responsiveness to the needs of the Auditor-General.
Of course, every agency would like more money. What if you had asked every single agency that appeared before you at the estimates committee, “If you had more money, could you provide more occasions of service”? You asked that question of the Auditor-General. She said, “Yes; if I had more money, I could do more.” If Mental Health had more money, they could do more. If Housing had more, they could do more.
She has received an average increase in funding of 17 per cent a year. And in one year, 2006-07, a year in which we cut funding across the board, the Auditor-General had a 36 per cent increase in funding.
It is in that context and in the context of recommendations that the estimates committee makes—that the Auditor-General, on top of an average 17 per cent a year, should again receive additional funds—that the government says, “That is a reasonable recommendation, particularly in the context of our history, a history in which we have consistently boosted funding for the Auditor-General.” The government says: “We need to look at that. We need a rigorous, objective basis on which to make decisions about increasing funding for an organisation that in recent years has received an average increase in funding of 17 per cent.” That is a simple fact. That is the response that I was making. There was an increase.
Most significantly, in the environment we are in—there is a global financial crisis, the world is in recession, the world is suffering the worst financial meltdown that it has suffered in a century—we have signalled that we will be imposing a one per cent efficiency dividend on major departments and a 0.5 per cent efficiency dividend on agencies under $20 million, with two exceptions. Who are the two organisations that are not to be subjected to a significant cut in funding next year? The Auditor-General and the Legislative Assembly, out of respect for the role that each of those organs plays. Which two organs are not to be subjected to an efficiency dividend next year? The Auditor-General and the Legislative Assembly. The estimates committee ignores that.
Through that particular structure, in recognition of the fact that our budget was turned over by more than $200 million, we are cutting every agency in the ACT public service, except two. But ignoring that, not commenting on the effect or the implications through the estimates process of that one per cent efficiency dividend, that one per cent cut that every other agency is going to face next year in response to these century-worst economic circumstances we find ourselves in, the estimates committee, acknowledging that everybody else is taking a one per cent cut—and for some departments, like Health, that is tens of millions of dollars—in an environment where the government has signalled that it is cutting Health by tens of millions of dollars, the estimates committee recommends an increase in funding for the Auditor-General. So the government says, “Well, we need to have a look at this.”
Mr Hanson: That’s not true. You’re not cutting Health. You’re spending an additional—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .