Page 1477 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let me turn to what mechanisms are in place for us to review some of these issues. Mr Hanson has sought a full performance review by the Auditor-General. The first and most important thing to stress is that the Auditor-General is already doing an inquiry that I believe will largely cover Mr Hanson’s concerns. There is a notice of the performance audit on the—
Mr Hanson: Why not support the motion, then?
MR RATTENBURY: He gave me a minute and a half today before he interjected; that is a new personal best, Mr Hanson. There is a notice of performance audit on the Auditor-General’s website and it outlines the scope of the audit that will be undertaken. My office contacted the Auditor-General both about the motion and to understand what the Auditor-General is doing in relation to the issue. The information I have received from the Auditor-General has assured me that the audit office is taking all the appropriate steps to respond to both the salary issue and the broader issues the motion presents. The audit office is looking into their actions and obligations in relation to the financial auditing of ACTEW and also the responsibilities of the ACTEW board in relation to the annual report.
In terms of the specific performance audit, the Auditor-General informs me and my office that the work on the audit has already begun and that she intends the audit to be completed by December this year. The audit will be focused and targeted and ensure that Canberrans are getting value for money and that water services are being delivered as efficiently as possible. The review will look at all relevant parts of water and sewerage delivery, and I am confident that if the auditor finds anything of concern along the way the matter will be comprehensively followed up and reported on in this place.
If we just reflect on that, we are looking at a situation where the Auditor-General has, as we know, broad powers. The Auditor-General is already looking into matters relating to ACTEW and already has work underway. As I have touched on, I am quite confident that if the Auditor-General finds areas of concern, no doubt she and her office will pursue those matters further. The Auditor-General is already engaged. You could take that on face value if you want to. No doubt Mr Hanson is going to have a go at my comments later. I am interested he saw the need to flag several times the fact he wants to be critical of my comments, but he was not prepared to do it in his opening remarks and is going to wait until after I have spoken. That speaks to the confidence he has in that analysis. But if you wanted to be generous you could simply say that Mr Hanson’s desire for a full Auditor-General’s report is, to some extent, picked up.
There are other issues in Mr Hanson’s motion I will turn to. There are, as I already flagged, three separate issues. Although I note there is some overlap between the questions of the water assets and the governance issue, nevertheless, my view is that they are largely best dealt with separately but, no doubt, they will also be considered in some way as part of the existing audit, as I have already touched on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video