Mr MILLS - 2007-08-30
Yesterday, I asked you to table the names of agencies and the amounts of money that were involved in the Auditor-General’s criticisms of a raft of agencies regarding the use of hospitality funds, credit cards and travel funds. You said:
I direct you to pages 38 through to 42 of the Auditor-General’s report, which are exclusively dedicated to specific agency responses. I ask you again: will you disclose the names of the agencies involved, and will you disclose the amounts of money involved in the questionable transactions, goose?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, I ask you to withdraw that last part. It is not appropriate in a question.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, simply withdraw.
Mr Stirling: You were too embarrassed to ask for a withdrawal yesterday. We are not. You have just prosecuted the case again.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, please cease interjecting. Please just withdraw.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw goose, Madam Speaker.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his question. I appreciate it is the last day of Question Time of this sittings, and I appreciate how difficult it is for a small group of opposition to muster enough questions to last through two weeks of Question Time, but he really is going back to an area of great embarrassment, I would have thought, to the member for Blain.
If we just go back some 23 hours, I distinctly recall a person with a mauve tie, similar to this, and looking very much like myself, answering this question in full yesterday - in full. There is little point in getting to our feet and answering a question twice - and I answered it twice yesterday, fully and comprehensively – and to come into Question Time and have it as the first question today.
Of course, there are responses from agencies through pages 38 to 42, as the member for Blain points out, because they are specific issues raised by the Auditor-General against each of those agencies. The Auditor-General, in the course of natural justice and being the upright person that he is, gives agencies an opportunity to respond to shortcomings identified by the Auditor-General. As I said yesterday, he is not an Auditor-General who goes around lobbing hand grenades or trying to ambush the government. If there is an issue with agencies in relation to accounts or auditing, he puts it before the agency, and the agency responds. It is up to the minister with responsibility for that agency to determine if the agency’s response is as fulsome, wholesome and forthcoming as it ought to be. A discussion between the minister and the CEO would take place, I would have thought, without exception, when the Auditor-General raises issues because, if the Auditor-General raises an issue, it is an issue for me, it is an issue for the Chief Minister, and it is an issue for the minister with responsibility for that agency. So, when you look at pages 38 to 42, they are specific issues, raised with specific agencies, on specific matters, and responded to by the agency concerned. Any follow up from that point is the responsibility of the minister.
In relation to page 10 of the Auditor-General’s report, as I said yesterday, it was a sweeping, generalised observation that some tightening up might need to occur, and the concern was as strong for him to recommend his own course of action, and that is that, over the next few months, he would be investigating this further and would report in due course. Now, he has not carried out his investigation, and the member for Blain stands here and says, ‘tell me the agencies, tell me the issues, tell me how much is spent. He has not even looked, you goose.
Mr Mills: You did not even know this existed yesterday, you goose.
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Oh, Madam Speaker, I am horrified. Please, I ask if the member would withdraw that offensive remark.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I would ask you to withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: How many times does he have to prove it? I withdraw.
Mr Mills: I also withdraw.
- … had he qualified an amount against it, there would have been a response from the responsible agency in the Auditor-General’s report.
I direct you to pages 38 through to 42 of the Auditor-General’s report, which are exclusively dedicated to specific agency responses. I ask you again: will you disclose the names of the agencies involved, and will you disclose the amounts of money involved in the questionable transactions, goose?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, I ask you to withdraw that last part. It is not appropriate in a question.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, simply withdraw.
Mr Stirling: You were too embarrassed to ask for a withdrawal yesterday. We are not. You have just prosecuted the case again.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, please cease interjecting. Please just withdraw.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw goose, Madam Speaker.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his question. I appreciate it is the last day of Question Time of this sittings, and I appreciate how difficult it is for a small group of opposition to muster enough questions to last through two weeks of Question Time, but he really is going back to an area of great embarrassment, I would have thought, to the member for Blain.
If we just go back some 23 hours, I distinctly recall a person with a mauve tie, similar to this, and looking very much like myself, answering this question in full yesterday - in full. There is little point in getting to our feet and answering a question twice - and I answered it twice yesterday, fully and comprehensively – and to come into Question Time and have it as the first question today.
Of course, there are responses from agencies through pages 38 to 42, as the member for Blain points out, because they are specific issues raised by the Auditor-General against each of those agencies. The Auditor-General, in the course of natural justice and being the upright person that he is, gives agencies an opportunity to respond to shortcomings identified by the Auditor-General. As I said yesterday, he is not an Auditor-General who goes around lobbing hand grenades or trying to ambush the government. If there is an issue with agencies in relation to accounts or auditing, he puts it before the agency, and the agency responds. It is up to the minister with responsibility for that agency to determine if the agency’s response is as fulsome, wholesome and forthcoming as it ought to be. A discussion between the minister and the CEO would take place, I would have thought, without exception, when the Auditor-General raises issues because, if the Auditor-General raises an issue, it is an issue for me, it is an issue for the Chief Minister, and it is an issue for the minister with responsibility for that agency. So, when you look at pages 38 to 42, they are specific issues, raised with specific agencies, on specific matters, and responded to by the agency concerned. Any follow up from that point is the responsibility of the minister.
In relation to page 10 of the Auditor-General’s report, as I said yesterday, it was a sweeping, generalised observation that some tightening up might need to occur, and the concern was as strong for him to recommend his own course of action, and that is that, over the next few months, he would be investigating this further and would report in due course. Now, he has not carried out his investigation, and the member for Blain stands here and says, ‘tell me the agencies, tell me the issues, tell me how much is spent. He has not even looked, you goose.
Mr Mills: You did not even know this existed yesterday, you goose.
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Oh, Madam Speaker, I am horrified. Please, I ask if the member would withdraw that offensive remark.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I would ask you to withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: How many times does he have to prove it? I withdraw.
Mr Mills: I also withdraw.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016