Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Watson and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the 407th report of the committee, Review of Auditor-General’s reports tabled between 18 January and 18 April 2005. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, as prescribed by the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951, examines all reports of the Auditor-General, and reports the results of the Committee’s deliberations to the Parliament.

This report details the findings of the Committee’s detailed examination of five performance audits tabled in early 2005. These five reports were selected for further scrutiny from the 21 audit reports presented to the Parliament between 12 January and 19 April 2005.

The reviews undertaken by the Committee have covered a number of Government agencies and included subjects such as customer service; regulatory functions; and contract management. The JCPAA has made recommendations within these reviews to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the agencies and to ensure that the Auditor-General’s recommendations are implemented.

In conducting these reviews the Committee has remained aware of the themes it has previously stated it will pursue, including agencies’ financial management, accountability and reporting responsibilities under the Constitution and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The Committee hopes to see continued improvement in agencies’ understanding of and adherence to these responsibilities.

As a result of our review of an audit into the investment of public funds, the Committee believes there may be some benefit from a central register of information about investments being undertaken by government agencies. This would enable interested parties, including the Parliament, to keep track of the investment of public monies and could also facilitate further information-sharing between agencies on investment practices.

The review of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s, or ARPANSA’s, regulation of Commonwealth radiation and nuclear activities covered a number of issues including regulatory business processes; licensing; conflict of interest; cost recovery; and the identification and enforcement of unlicensed activity. We have made several recommendations aimed at improving the standards and procedures for regulatory functions within the organisation; increasing transparency in the formulation of national policies, codes and standards; and facilitating greater sharing of information on uniform national standards for licensing and compliance monitoring of radiation sources and nuclear facilities.

In addition, we have emphasised the importance of the Department of Health and Ageing providing an adequate level of monitoring and support to its portfolio agencies. This is in response to similar issues being raised in this audit as were previously examined for the regulation of non-prescription medicinal products by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), another agency within the Health and Ageing portfolio. Agencies such as ARPANSA and TGA have significant roles in terms of the health and safety of the Australian public.

Centrelink has again been a focus of the JCPAA, with two areas subject to review. Firstly, the Edge project, a software system which was to incorporate the thousands of family tax benefit system rules in order to improve the accuracy of the assessment of customer entitlements, was terminated before completion. We are disappointed that a system which appeared to hold such promise was developed but never fully implemented, and we believe Centrelink should maintain its momentum to improve the systems in place overall to reduce the rate of errors in its data. This review also highlighted the impact that large numbers of rapid legislation changes have on program implementation by agencies such as Centrelink.

The second Centrelink review examined a series of ANAO reports into Centrelink’s major individual customer feedback systems. This report has highlighted such issues as sample selection processes which may lead to bias and ultimately unreliable data; the reporting of such data without transparent reporting of the source of the data and its limitations; the lack of comprehensive costings across all the systems examined; and the possible under-participation of Centrelink’s more vulnerable customers in processes such as the Value Creation Workshops.

The Committee is concerned that for Centrelink’s customers, their rights are less well understood than their obligations, and would like to see this imbalance rectified by Centrelink.

The Committee acknowledges the valuable work of the Auditor-General and the staff at the Australian National Audit Office. We look forward to continuing reviews of the Auditor-General’s reports.

I commend the Report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.