House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Departmental Finances DEPARTMENTAL FINANCES The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:48): I move: That the Economic and Finance Committee inquire into and report on the finances of the Department for Education and Child Development, the Department for Health, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and SAPOL, with a particular focus on efficiency and effectiveness. I realise that we are getting close to the midnight hour with regard to this session, so I am not anticipating that the Economic and Finance Committee would realistically be able to do much in respect of what this motion suggests, but I am raising it because I believe (and I believe other members feel the same) that the Economic and Finance Committee needs to be focused on some of the larger departments. I have not listed them because I am suggesting there is anything untoward in any of those agencies; I just list them because they are some of the large spending departments. It has struck me for quite a while that it is ironic that we have the Economic and Finance Committee look at issues which, whilst they are important, do not involve anywhere near the sort of expenditure that you get in the millions of dollars in the Department for Education, the Department for Health or the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. I believe that the Economic and Finance Committee should parallel more the vigorous and rigorous role performed by some of the watchdog committees in the United States Congress and in some of the other parliaments in Australia. Some members might ask, 'Why doesn't the Auditor-General do this?' Traditionally, auditors-general in South Australia have chosen not to focus on the question of efficiency and effectiveness in the same way that auditors-general have in Victoria and some of the other states. That is not a criticism of the Auditor-General, current or past, but for some reason, even though the act gives them the power to do it, they do not look at what I think is a critical factor, that is, are the citizens of South Australia getting their money spent in the most efficient and effective way? Part of that, for example, would be how many frontline people we have in the health area, in police or in whatever agency you want to look at. I am not terribly interested in whether the tea fund (and I am being a bit frivolous) balances in a department. Most of what is reported upon is routine accounting. I am putting forward this motion because I think the Economic and Finance Committee could really put these agencies under the spotlight. I have mentioned in here before that when I was on the Economic and Finance Committee we looked at a whole lot of things, including some pretty big issues, such as the privatisation of electricity and so on. Under the act, we were also required to look at expenditure by the then water catchment boards. A lot of the time we looked at whether they did the wrong thing by having two meetings in one day so they got double payments and so on. That was important, but in the wider context of a budget of billions, they were really quite minor matters. I think the community and the government could save a lot of money by focusing on the greater efficiency and effectiveness of these agencies, particularly, obviously, the larger ones because that is where the money is being spent: phone usage by these agencies, for example—obviously in this day and age you need communication—but are they getting the best value from the services they engage? Are there electronic services? Similarly, the use of vehicles and those sorts of things, if you put them under the spotlight I am sure that a proper focus could generate savings literally in the millions of dollars without taking away from their core functions. In another place we have the Budget and Finance Committee, which is doing some useful work; however, this is the principal house in respect of money matters in relation to government. We should have under our umbrella a committee which is really a financial tiger and which looks at issues and money matters in a rigorous and vigorous way. Traditionally, governments have been a bit coy and cautious about having an economic and finance committee that is too active and too much focused on inquiry, but I think and hope that whichever party wins the next election that attitude will change and that the government of the day will see the Economic and Finance Committee as having a much more in-depth role, especially in relation to these larger agencies. I put this motion forward now, but I realise that between now and the election it is highly unlikely that the Economic and Finance Committee will be looking at these departments; it certainly would not be able to look at all of them. I am flagging what I think in the future should be a focus of the committee—that is, to really be what its name suggests and look in a proper and thorough way at how money is spent by the big spenders in government. I have just listed a few, not because, as I said earlier, I think they are doing anything wrong, but the point is that we do not really know. Estimates committees, as we have them, do not deliver the goods. The government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on public servants preparing answers to questions which are never asked. I remember a former chief justice asking why we do not put forward all the information departments collect in preparation for estimates so that MPs can see what they are actually doing. Well, that is the sort of thing that the Economic and Finance Committee could do in a much more efficient way than what we have in estimates, where member X asks a question, then member Y on the other side. It is, as I described, a near-death experience being on that estimates committee. It does not provide the rigour and the questioning; it is really a show place for the government and opposition to get out a good press release for the day. That is what it is really about, and it should be more than that. We have the option of putting some higher octane fuel in the tank of the Economic and Finance Committee so they can look at these large government departments that spend billions of dollars and yet are never really subjected to any sort of in-depth financial scrutiny, other than the very good work the Auditor-General does in an accounting sense, of proper spending of money. The current role of the Auditor-General does not encompass what I think is very important; that is, is the money being spent efficiently and effectively in relation to, for example, front-line services? I guess it is an aspirational motion, but I put it forward in the hope that we, and the next parliament in particular, can energise the good members of the Economic and Finance Committee to undertake this very important role set out in the motion. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.