❓ A parliamentary question regarding an audit of the Treasurer's travel claims. The Speaker's response reveals that no formal audit was conducted, but the Treasurer repaid $240 for a claim made on 15 July 2009 and amended a claim for 24 August 2009.
AnsweredQoN 2043Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Treasurer’s statement to the Legislative Assembly on 21 October 2009 that the Finance Department of Parliament would conduct an audit of the Treasurer’s travel claims, and I ask:
(a) was a full audit of the Treasurer’s travel claims undertaken; and
(i) if so, what type of audit was undertaken;
(b) what was the outcome of the audit and was an audit report prepared;
(c) will the Speaker table a copy of the audit report;
(d) were there any discrepancies found in the Treasurer’s travel claims; and
(i) if so, what were they;
(e) did the Treasurer claim travel allowances for specific days to which he was not entitled other than 15 July 2009; and
(i) if so, on which days;
(f) which Officers of the Parliament carried out the audit;
(g) has the Treasurer repaid any monies claimed; and
(i) if so how much and for which days; and
(h) will the Speaker table a copy of all documents used in compiling the audit report?
(a) was a full audit of the Treasurer’s travel claims undertaken; and
(i) if so, what type of audit was undertaken;
(b) what was the outcome of the audit and was an audit report prepared;
(c) will the Speaker table a copy of the audit report;
(d) were there any discrepancies found in the Treasurer’s travel claims; and
(i) if so, what were they;
(e) did the Treasurer claim travel allowances for specific days to which he was not entitled other than 15 July 2009; and
(i) if so, on which days;
(f) which Officers of the Parliament carried out the audit;
(g) has the Treasurer repaid any monies claimed; and
(i) if so how much and for which days; and
(h) will the Speaker table a copy of all documents used in compiling the audit report?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 December 2009
Responded by
Hon Grant Woodhams
Response time
5 days
Questions (a) and (b).
By letter dated 26 October 2009, the Hon Troy Buswell, MLA, wrote to the Chief Finance Officer for the Legislative Assembly forwarding a repayment of $240 in relation to his claim for 15 July 2009, and enclosing a folder of documentation including copies of his claims earlier submitted, copies of diary entries and driver request forms. Mr Buswell asked for a reconciliation of the information with claims made.
On 27 October 2009 the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, as the Accountable Officer, wrote to Mr Buswell indicating that complying with the request was problematic, indicating that there was no clear understanding of what the proposed outcome of such a check might be. The Clerk wrote that if the intention is to certify that the claims are valid, then he did not believe it is possible for the Chief Finance Officer or anyone else in the parliamentary staff to do so. Even if parliamentary staff checked all the documentation Mr Buswell provided, the Clerk could not be sure that the diaries or drivers sheets are accurate; whether travel was undertaken or not; or whether there is other information which identifies or corroborates the member’s presence in any given place. As the diary entries and drivers sheets are not parliamentary documents, parliamentary staff could not independently verify their accuracy on such matters as date of creation for example.
The Clerk further advised that many checks would have to take place, for example that the claim documents Mr Buswell had provided are the same as the claim documents the finance section have processed, that the Parliament sitting dates were in accord with the Member’s documentation, and that there was no other relevant documentation available. The time taken would be significant and even then the outcome would not be conclusive.
The Clerk indicated that he had considered other alternatives including bringing in an audit officer from the Auditor General’s office or perhaps sourced from the Legislative Assembly Department’s Internal Audit firm to undertake the work and mentioned that he had also had a brief conversation with the Deputy Auditor General about this matter in the broad. He advised that in his view those courses would not cure the difficulties already referred to, and noted that equally the Legislative Assembly Department and the finance section would not be in a position for the same reasons to offer such a check to any other member either, except to provide a confirmation of claims paid.
Consequently, he advised Mr Buswell that he regretted he could not assist the Member with that particular request.
While as indicated no audit has been undertaken, as a matter of course the finance section checks members claims to ensure that a member has not made two claims for allowance relating to the same date and that documentation and certification supports the claim in accordance with the SAT determination.
It is not uncommon for claims to be returned to various members seeking clarification or further documentation
.
Question (c) (d), (f) and (h)
.
Not applicable.
Question (e)
.
By letter dated 9 November, 2009, Mr Buswell forwarded an amended claim in relation to Monday 24 August 2009 to substitute Tuesday 25 August 2009. Mr Buswell was advised by letter dated 10 November that our finance records had been amended, and acknowledging that the total amount claimed and paid remained unchanged.
Question (g)
.
Mr Buswell has repaid $240 in respect of the claim made for 15 July, 2009.
By letter dated 26 October 2009, the Hon Troy Buswell, MLA, wrote to the Chief Finance Officer for the Legislative Assembly forwarding a repayment of $240 in relation to his claim for 15 July 2009, and enclosing a folder of documentation including copies of his claims earlier submitted, copies of diary entries and driver request forms. Mr Buswell asked for a reconciliation of the information with claims made.
On 27 October 2009 the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, as the Accountable Officer, wrote to Mr Buswell indicating that complying with the request was problematic, indicating that there was no clear understanding of what the proposed outcome of such a check might be. The Clerk wrote that if the intention is to certify that the claims are valid, then he did not believe it is possible for the Chief Finance Officer or anyone else in the parliamentary staff to do so. Even if parliamentary staff checked all the documentation Mr Buswell provided, the Clerk could not be sure that the diaries or drivers sheets are accurate; whether travel was undertaken or not; or whether there is other information which identifies or corroborates the member’s presence in any given place. As the diary entries and drivers sheets are not parliamentary documents, parliamentary staff could not independently verify their accuracy on such matters as date of creation for example.
The Clerk further advised that many checks would have to take place, for example that the claim documents Mr Buswell had provided are the same as the claim documents the finance section have processed, that the Parliament sitting dates were in accord with the Member’s documentation, and that there was no other relevant documentation available. The time taken would be significant and even then the outcome would not be conclusive.
The Clerk indicated that he had considered other alternatives including bringing in an audit officer from the Auditor General’s office or perhaps sourced from the Legislative Assembly Department’s Internal Audit firm to undertake the work and mentioned that he had also had a brief conversation with the Deputy Auditor General about this matter in the broad. He advised that in his view those courses would not cure the difficulties already referred to, and noted that equally the Legislative Assembly Department and the finance section would not be in a position for the same reasons to offer such a check to any other member either, except to provide a confirmation of claims paid.
Consequently, he advised Mr Buswell that he regretted he could not assist the Member with that particular request.
While as indicated no audit has been undertaken, as a matter of course the finance section checks members claims to ensure that a member has not made two claims for allowance relating to the same date and that documentation and certification supports the claim in accordance with the SAT determination.
It is not uncommon for claims to be returned to various members seeking clarification or further documentation
.
Question (c) (d), (f) and (h)
.
Not applicable.
Question (e)
.
By letter dated 9 November, 2009, Mr Buswell forwarded an amended claim in relation to Monday 24 August 2009 to substitute Tuesday 25 August 2009. Mr Buswell was advised by letter dated 10 November that our finance records had been amended, and acknowledging that the total amount claimed and paid remained unchanged.
Question (g)
.
Mr Buswell has repaid $240 in respect of the claim made for 15 July, 2009.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.