Auditor-General's Supplementary Reports

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:59): I move:

That on the prorogation of the present parliament, should the Auditor-General deliver to the President any supplementary report emanating from the Office of the Auditor-General, the report is deemed to be laid upon the table of the Legislative Council and the President is hereby authorised, upon the presentation of that report to the President, to publish and distribute that report.

This is a most important motion in terms of public accountability and, in particular, accountability of the government of the day and the departments and agencies responsible to various ministers. In moving this motion I refer members to the Report of the Auditor-General tabled in the house only in the last few weeks, and to pages 4 and 5 of that report. Under the heading of 'Changes to improve timing of Auditor-General's reports', and paragraph 1.3.1 'Tabling process amendments sought', the Auditor-General said:

Reports prepared by the Auditor‐General under the [Public Finance and Audit Act] must be delivered to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly. They must table these reports on the next parliamentary sitting day. Only then is the report deemed to be 'published’ (that is, it is available to all Members of Parliament and the public). The availability of the Auditor‐General’s reports is therefore restricted to parliamentary sitting dates. This impacts on the Auditor‐General’s ability to report on audit outcomes as soon as possible. For example, in the last election year the Auditor‐General was unable to table a report between the last sitting day on 28 November and the first time the new Parliament sat on 6 May.

Reports prepared by the Auditor‐General under the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act 2011 have a different tabling process whereby if Parliament is not sitting at the time a report is delivered to the Speaker and President, the report will be taken to have been published one clear day after it is received.

The adoption of a similar tabling process for reports prepared by the Auditor‐General under the [Public Finance and Audit Act] would ensure prompt reporting of audit outcomes.

There is a second and subsequent issue that the Auditor-General raises which I will address later in my contribution, but this motion addresses that particular expression of view from the Auditor-General in his annual report.

In his evidence to the Economic and Finance Committee, again in the last week or so, the Auditor-General was asked further questions in relation to this and he further expanded on the issue. However, what he did say in his evidence was that he had expressed these views previously to the government and its officers, on one occasion through the Simplify process (and we currently have a bill before the parliament). He also indicated that he had had other opportunities to raise the issue, although he did not expand, in detail, on what those occasions were.

What he has confirmed in evidence to a parliamentary committee is that the tabling of this annual report was not the first occasion he had raised this issue with government and its representatives. The fact that he then outlined his views in the annual report is an indication that, having been unsuccessful through other mechanisms in achieving a change of policy and approach by the government, he included it in the report, which was publicly available not only to members of parliament but also to the public generally.

The motion we have before us is, therefore, an alternative mechanism to ensure that what the Auditor-General seeks to do can occur. As I said, his preferred mechanism was amendments to the Public Finance and Audit Act, but the capacity to be able to amend that act from opposition as a private member's bill is obviously fraught with time difficulties, given that there are only three or so sitting weeks remaining, with the optional week. In essence, this motion is the alternative mechanism to allow that to occur.

If passed, the motion will essentially state that after parliament is prorogued the Auditor-General's Report can be presented to the President of the Legislative Council, and that if they are presented to the President of the Legislative Council they would be made public soon afterwards, not only to members of parliament but also to members of the public. So, to all intents and purposes, it is a mechanism to allow the Auditor-General to conclude the work he has been undertaking, and, more importantly, to report on it in the period between the proroguing of parliament and the state election period.

It raises an interesting question as to why the Weatherill Labor government was not prepared to accede to the wishes of the Auditor-General in this respect. When one looks at the back of the Auditor-General's Report to see what the government might not wish to see the public light of day prior to a state election, page 117 of the Auditor-General's Report is very interesting reading indeed. Under the heading of Supplementary reporting 2016-17, the Auditor-General states:

Specific and general matters for supplementary reporting include:

the State finances and related matters

the new RAH

a grant to the One Community organisation

Adelaide Riverbank (Festival Plaza) development

various public sector information and communications technology systems

certain public sector infrastructure and other projects.

Just addressing a few of those, I would certainly be surprised if the Auditor-General's supplementary report on the state finances and related matters was not tabled prior to the prorogation of the parliament. The history of the Auditor-General in relation to that annual report is that he has generally managed to conclude it whilst the parliamentary session before Christmas continues.

Certainly, the other reports are in and of themselves very significant. The NRAH project has been a matter of much controversy: massive blowouts of more than $600 million in terms of the total cost, significant delays, ongoing mitigation between stakeholders and various partners and a variety of other issues that the Auditor-General has obviously had a good, long look at.

The outrageous $600,000 or $700,000 grant to the One Community organisation was in and of itself a disgrace, as we would all understand. A complaint was lodged with the Auditor-General, asking him to investigate the process and mechanism of that particular grant: the fact that it was kept secret, the fact that some of the money was used to pay for polling booth workers in a federal election in some marginal seats and the fact that key office bearers in that particular organisation were former Labor Party members and staffers. Much of that has been revealed publicly, but the process and who was responsible for the decisions and whether or not any laws were breached are the issues that need to be addressed by the Auditor-General.

If there were to be a report produced between the prorogation of parliament and the election, it should see the light of day so that ministers and this government should be held to account in relation to that issue. I do not need to outline the detail of the concerns that have been expressed regarding the controversy in relation to the Walker Corporation or the Riverbank Festival Plaza development.

There are other areas I will talk about, including various public sector ICT systems—the Auditor-General has done good work in recent years in looking at some of the blowouts in ICT programs; the scrapping of expenditure and a number of others; the lack of adequacy of the performance of a number of others, such as the EPAS in the health system; and, finally, the public sector infrastructure and other projects. I guess that could refer to any number public sector infrastructure projects that the Auditor-General may or may not have been addressing.

Clearly, the Weatherill Labor government is significantly concerned that the Auditor-General may report and report unfavourably on government performance in relation to managing some of these issues. The Weatherill government is obviously petrified of any transparency or accountability being brought to bear on any of these issues in the months leading up to the state election. That is why, not unreasonably, the Auditor-General asked for action to be taken by the Weatherill government to allow supplementary reporting between the period of prorogation of parliament and the state election.

For the obvious reasons, Premier Weatherill, Treasurer Koutsantonis and the Weatherill government have refused to accede to the Auditor-General's requests in this area. That is why the motion is being moved today, and that is why it is important that the motion be passed before the parliament rises. I will be circulating among members, urging that there be a vote on this particular issue on the next Wednesday of sitting.

Before concluding, there was one other issue that was not addressed by this particular motion but was raised under the same chapter heading in the Auditor-General's Report. It raises the very interesting issue of annual and supplementary reporting process amendments that the Auditor-General sought in relation to his report.

The Auditor-General has evidently interpreted his act in such a way that, unless a particular issue was raised in his annual report, he is unable to undertake supplementary reports. To give an example, what the Auditor-General is saying is that, if he has conducted an annual report over a whole range of issues for the financial year 2016-17, if in the next financial year, July 2017, a major controversy erupts in relation to a particular project or process, because it was not covered or handled in the annual report, he is unable to produce a supplementary report on that issue until October of the following year. So, if the issue was raised in July of this year, he would not be able to produce a supplementary report, or report in the annual report, until October of next year.

That just seems an entirely ludicrous proposition. I am sure the Auditor-General has taken legal advice. Should there be a Marshall Liberal government after March 2018, it would certainly be my intention to seek legal advice, Crown advice, as to whether there are alternative mechanisms within the existing legislation that would allow the Auditor-General to not only inquire into but to report on any issue that arises during a particular financial year.

I have to say I am not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if there was not a mechanism within the existing legislation to allow that to occur. I respect the fact that the Auditor-General has obviously taken advice. It may well be that it has been the custom and practice of previous auditors-general as well, and that is just the way they operate, and for them to operate differently, they want a change to the Public Finance and Audit Act.

This is not an issue that, as you would know, Mr Acting President, our party room has addressed as yet, but as the shadow treasurer, and if in the position of treasurer in a Marshall Liberal government after March 2018, I would indicate personal sympathy to resolving the issue either by clarifying that the existing law allows the Auditor-General to do what he should be able to do, but if the Public Finance and Audit Act does not allow that, then to seek the support of the party room, if in government, to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act to allow that sort of sensible operation of the Auditor-General's office. I merely make mention of that in this particular motion because it was raised in the same section of the Auditor-General's Annual Report.

In concluding, motions like this are not unprecedented. I know the Treasurer and the government love to wrongly and untruthfully refer to actions of the Legislative Council as being unprecedented—as never having occurred in the history of the Legislative Council since 1857—but this is not unprecedented. There have been similar motions before. With the assistance of the Clerk, I was able to produce one such motion back on 18 November 1999 when there was the last Liberal government. There was a similar, but not exactly the same, motion which allowed the tabling, in essence, out of session of a report in relation to the leasing arrangements for the electricity trust of South Australia.

My recollection, although I did not really require it for the purposes of this speech, is that there have been other examples, certainly in my time in the Legislative Council, where we have used this particular device to allow the tabling of reports. I must admit that I did have some vague recollection it might have been used in relation to the State Bank at one stage, or issues related to the State Bank, but, putting that to the side, there is precedent for this sort of motion. It is not unprecedented in terms of its nature or scope. It is an entirely sensible proposition. I urge members of the Legislative Council to support it in the interests of transparency and accountability and, as I said, my office will advise members that we will be seeking a vote on this on the next Wednesday of sitting.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.E. Hanson.