Senate debates

Tuesday, 14 October 2008

Safe Work Australia Bill 2008; Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008

In Committee

1:23 pm

Photo of Joe LudwigJoe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I have, in part, good news for Senator Abetz. The clause is unnecessary—that is the bad news. The good news is that, for all the reasons that you articulated—and it might be worth noting this down—Safe Work Australia will be prescribed as an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. It is in line with the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s advice and with appropriate governance arrangements for Australian government bodies. It is consistent with the principles set out in the Uhrig review, which I am sure you are familiar with. Part 7 of the FMA Act goes further than the amendment proposed by the opposition and deals in some detail with the chief executive’s responsibilities in relation to financial management. They include, in part: the promotion of efficient, effective and ethical use of Commonwealth resources, in section 44; the implementation of a forward control plan, in section 45; the requirement to establish an audit committee, in section 46; recovery of debts, in section 47; the keeping of accounts and records and access to those by the finance minister, in section 48; the requirement to give the annual financial statements to the Auditor-General, in section 49; and the provision of additional financial statements and any information the finance minister requires about the financial affairs of the agency, in section 50.

In effect, what I am putting to you is that we agree with the principle that you put forward. It is in the FMA Act and in fact encompasses not only an audit committee but all of those matters more broadly which came out of the Uhrig review, which deal with financial management and the chief executive’s responsibility in relation to ensuring that. Sections 44 to 50 set out those specific responsibilities that they have to meet. Therefore, we agree with the principle that you put forward. Should this legislation pass, the CEO will have to meet that as part of their requirements, because it is in the FMA Act. We think it is therefore unnecessary to put a separate provision in the Safe Work Australia Bill. That is why it is structured in that way. If you are an FMA agency then those are your responsibilities. We then do not have to reproduce it in each and every piece of legislation. All of those provisions provide for the chief executive’s responsibilities.

Comments

No comments