Page 2825 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in this funding are determined by the government, taking into account benchmarking and other considerations.
I should point out to the Assembly that, under the Auditor-General Act, there is a formal process for the Auditor-General to request additional funding. The Auditor-General, under section 22A, can inform the public accounts committee, which in turn informs the Treasurer.
For some reason, this year the funding request from the public accounts committee was not submitted in time to be considered alongside other competing budget priorities. The 2009-10 budget was also developed in the context of the global financial crisis and uncertain revenues from the commonwealth. Additional funding for the allocation in the budget was provided to the areas of greatest need.
It is up to an elected government to make decisions on resourcing priorities. In the case of the Auditor-General, prior to finalising the budget, the government had considered a budget proposal from the office. This proposal was considered alongside other proposals in areas of core government services. Taking into account available benchmarking, information from other jurisdictions and the level of funding already provided, the government decided that the current funding was adequate.
I am sure the community would understand why we chose to fund services such as the emergency department of Canberra Hospital over providing increased funding to the Auditor-General in this year’s budget. While we recognise the important work of the Auditor-General and the work that the office undertakes, it is difficult to justify an increase in funding when there are areas of greater need upon which the community relies. This is a hard decision, and it was made in a challenging financial climate. If more resources were available, the government’s decision may well have been different.
This government remains supportive of the Auditor-General’s Office and the valuable role it plays in maintaining accountability and confidence in the public service. This government has a productive working relationship with the Auditor-General, which is based on mutual respect and understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities, and we look forward to continuing and maintaining this relationship.
It is important that this Assembly recognise the importance of the Auditor-General’s Office. The roles and functions are far too important to be dragged into politics. Put simply, the public accounts committee and the estimates committee made recommendations to increase funding for the Auditor-General’s Office. The government considers neither the estimates committee nor the public accounts committee has provided the adequate and substantial information required to support the argument that its resources are manifestly inadequate. The government has indicated that it will adopt a rigorous approach to establishing resource adequacy.
These are the simple facts, and I urge the Assembly to stay well clear of making this a political issue. As indicated, I will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s motion but I do support the amendment put forward by Ms Le Couteur.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .