Download Fragment

Monday, 4 July 2011
Page: 7262

Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (10:15): As Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I rise to speak in support of the committee's report 423: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 39 (2009-10) to 15 (2010-11). The committee is responsible for reviewing all of the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the parliament. The committee is responsible for reporting the results of the committee's deliberations to the parliament, and this responsibility is prescribed by the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951. Report 423 is the first report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of the 43rd Parliament.

In reviewing the Auditor-General's reports tabled between May and November 2010, the committee sought to examine five reports in detail. The audit reports reviewed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit are Audit report No. 2 of 2010-11: Conduct by Infrastructure Australia of the first national infrastructure audit and development of the infrastructure priority list; Audit report No. 3 of 2010-11: The establishment, implementation and administration of the strategic projects component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program; Audit report No. 9 of 2010-11: Green Loans Program; Audit report No. 11 of 2010-11: Direct source procurement; and Audit report No. 12 of 2010-11: Home Insulation Program.

Report 423, before the House today, is the report detailing the findings of the committee's examination of those five performance audits that I have just referred to which were selected by the committee for further scrutiny. As already stated by the member for Lyne, the chair of the committee, these reports cover a range of agencies and identify a number of areas for improvement in administration, including the decision-making processes regarding infra­structure projects, the transparency and accessibility of regional grants admin­istration, the lack of evidence to determine whether value for money is being achieved in government procurement, and poor governance arrangements for key stimulus climate change.

The role of the committee in examining these reports is primarily to ascertain what action has been taken or is being taken by the relevant agencies to address the recom­mendations made by the Australian National Audit Office's reports. The committee heard evidence from the relevant agencies on each of these reports to ascertain whether action is progressing at an acceptable pace and also whether such action is sufficient to address the issues raised within the Auditor-General's reports.

Firstly, the committee reviewed the conduct by Infrastructure Australia of the first national infrastructure audit and the development of the infrastructure priority list. The ANAO report found that there was a lack of transparency in relation to the decisions made by this agency. The com­mittee notes that Infrastructure Australia is not obligated to document the reasons for the council's decisions. However, in the interests of transparency in this area, we believe it should be done. It is acknowledged that work is being undertaken by the agency to improve its processes and that the recommendations of the Auditor-General's report were agreed to by the agency. However, the committee, consistent with the ANAO recommendation, has recommended that, in future, Infrastructure Australia provide clear and consistent advice on the level of funding and necessary conditions it recommends for priority projects.

In relation to the establishment, impl­ementation and administration of the strategic projects component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Prog­ram, it is acknowledged both in the ANAO report and in this committee's report that this program was developed in response to the global financial crisis and, as such, the stimulus had time-critical elements to it. Consequently, some of the errors and problems that we have identified and that were reported by the Auditor-General came about because of those time restrictions. Having said that, there was a lack of clear assessment criteria made available to the local governments, and this led to an oversubscription of the program. What is positive in relation to this program and the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is that they have indicated that they are making improvements in this area. There have been assurances given and the committee has not made recommendations in relation to this area because of the assurances that were given to the ANAO.

In relation to the green loans and home insulation programs collectively, these programs have ceased but the department have given indications that they are implementing recommendations so that they will be able to deal with this better in the future. I believe more work needs to be done in the area of direct procurement. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Lyne wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

Mr OAKESHOTT: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.