The release today of an Auditor General report into the lack of accountability of the State Government demonstrates beyond doubt that the “gold standard transparency” we were promised by the incoming Labor Government in 2017 is now a joke.
That is according to the Shadow Minister for Energy Dr Steve Thomas, whose questions about payments to a legal firm for advice on Griffin Coal have been kept secret by a Government too embarrassed by the debacle of the coalfields in Western Australia to give an open and honest answer.
“The arrogance of the Government position is beyond belief” Dr Thomas said.
“They are spending a fortune of taxpayer’s money on legal advice, and they will not even tell the Auditor General what the price is. This makes a mockery of the accountability process.”
The Auditor General’s report highlighted that:
- In two cases she had to issue a “disclaimer of opinion” on the Government’s answers to my question in Parliament because her staff were refused access to the information they needed to determine whether the answers were reasonable.
- In the other case she determined that the Government’s action to refuse to answer the question on the total cost of the legal fees was “was not reasonable and therefore not appropriate”.
“There is no doubt that this is the action of a secretive and obstructive Government, but it is utterly unacceptable for the Government to hamstring the Auditor General this way” Dr Thomas said.
“It was less than two years ago that the Government amended the legislation that underpins the Auditor General, telling the Parliament that the AG would have all the access they needed to ensure accountability.
“Today that commitment has been proven to be a complete failure.
“An embarrassed Government is keeping key details of their mismanagement secret from the public, the Parliament, and now it proves even the Auditor General.
“As the Auditor General said in her report “commercial confidentiality is not a reason to prevent me and my staff from accessing information. Access by my auditors does not equal public disclosure” and “not providing a detailed explanation of why the material is commercially sensitive makes it very difficult for me to assess whether the Attorney General in this instance made a decision based on valid concerns”.
“I could not agree more” Dr Thomas said.
