❓ Mr. Buswell questions the Treasurer regarding a qualified audit of the Office of Shared Services due to inadequate segregation of duties and potential fraud. The Treasurer defends the government's handling of the issue, stating the problem was identified and resolved.
AnsweredQoN 546Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
OFFICE OF SHARED SERVICES - QUALIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS
I refer to the highly unusual and embarrassing qualification of Treasury accounts by the Auditor General in which it was noted, according to my notes, that - At the Office of Shared Services, which is a business unit of the Department, there was inadequate segregation of duties in respect of payments to suppliers. As a result, there was a risk of fraudulent payments being processed without detection. (1) Will the Treasurer order a full inquiry into all purchasing activities of the Office of Shared Services to determine whether any fraud has occurred, as opposed to the limited audit conducted by the Auditor General? (2) Is this just another example of the Treasurer’s incompetent management of his pet project, which is already two years late and $100 million over budget? Mr E.S. RIPPER
I refer to the highly unusual and embarrassing qualification of Treasury accounts by the Auditor General in which it was noted, according to my notes, that - At the Office of Shared Services, which is a business unit of the Department, there was inadequate segregation of duties in respect of payments to suppliers. As a result, there was a risk of fraudulent payments being processed without detection. (1) Will the Treasurer order a full inquiry into all purchasing activities of the Office of Shared Services to determine whether any fraud has occurred, as opposed to the limited audit conducted by the Auditor General? (2) Is this just another example of the Treasurer’s incompetent management of his pet project, which is already two years late and $100 million over budget? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) How the opposition concocts crises and froths at the mouth as it attempts to make a hit on a very successful government in a very successful state! The Auditor General has followed up an internal audit opinion and has qualified the accounts as a result of the detection of a control weakness in the Office of Shared Services. Forty-nine control objectives were examined and a weakness was found in one. The weakness was reported by the internal auditors commissioned by the Office of Shared Services and was then confirmed by the Auditor General. There has been an investigation; it has been carried out by the Auditor General. What higher level of investigation does the opposition want? The Auditor General has satisfied himself with the action he has taken. The matter has been fixed; it has been resolved. There was a risk, but the risk did not emerge. There was no fraudulent payment, only the risk of one. There was nothing wrong with the financial statements, nothing wrong with the performance indicators and nothing wrong with 48 of the 49 control objectives. There was something wrong with one of the control objectives, it was discovered by internal audit and it has been fixed. There was no damage done, although the risk of damage did exist. Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
(2) Is this just another example of the Treasurer’s incompetent management of his pet project, which is already two years late and $100 million over budget? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) How the opposition concocts crises and froths at the mouth as it attempts to make a hit on a very successful government in a very successful state! The Auditor General has followed up an internal audit opinion and has qualified the accounts as a result of the detection of a control weakness in the Office of Shared Services. Forty-nine control objectives were examined and a weakness was found in one. The weakness was reported by the internal auditors commissioned by the Office of Shared Services and was then confirmed by the Auditor General. There has been an investigation; it has been carried out by the Auditor General. What higher level of investigation does the opposition want? The Auditor General has satisfied himself with the action he has taken. The matter has been fixed; it has been resolved. There was a risk, but the risk did not emerge. There was no fraudulent payment, only the risk of one. There was nothing wrong with the financial statements, nothing wrong with the performance indicators and nothing wrong with 48 of the 49 control objectives. There was something wrong with one of the control objectives, it was discovered by internal audit and it has been fixed. There was no damage done, although the risk of damage did exist. Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) How the opposition concocts crises and froths at the mouth as it attempts to make a hit on a very successful government in a very successful state! The Auditor General has followed up an internal audit opinion and has qualified the accounts as a result of the detection of a control weakness in the Office of Shared Services. Forty-nine control objectives were examined and a weakness was found in one. The weakness was reported by the internal auditors commissioned by the Office of Shared Services and was then confirmed by the Auditor General. There has been an investigation; it has been carried out by the Auditor General. What higher level of investigation does the opposition want? The Auditor General has satisfied himself with the action he has taken. The matter has been fixed; it has been resolved. There was a risk, but the risk did not emerge. There was no fraudulent payment, only the risk of one. There was nothing wrong with the financial statements, nothing wrong with the performance indicators and nothing wrong with 48 of the 49 control objectives. There was something wrong with one of the control objectives, it was discovered by internal audit and it has been fixed. There was no damage done, although the risk of damage did exist. Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
(1)-(2) How the opposition concocts crises and froths at the mouth as it attempts to make a hit on a very successful government in a very successful state! The Auditor General has followed up an internal audit opinion and has qualified the accounts as a result of the detection of a control weakness in the Office of Shared Services. Forty-nine control objectives were examined and a weakness was found in one. The weakness was reported by the internal auditors commissioned by the Office of Shared Services and was then confirmed by the Auditor General. There has been an investigation; it has been carried out by the Auditor General. What higher level of investigation does the opposition want? The Auditor General has satisfied himself with the action he has taken. The matter has been fixed; it has been resolved. There was a risk, but the risk did not emerge. There was no fraudulent payment, only the risk of one. There was nothing wrong with the financial statements, nothing wrong with the performance indicators and nothing wrong with 48 of the 49 control objectives. There was something wrong with one of the control objectives, it was discovered by internal audit and it has been fixed. There was no damage done, although the risk of damage did exist. Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
(2) Is this just another example of the Treasurer’s incompetent management of his pet project, which is already two years late and $100 million over budget? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) How the opposition concocts crises and froths at the mouth as it attempts to make a hit on a very successful government in a very successful state! The Auditor General has followed up an internal audit opinion and has qualified the accounts as a result of the detection of a control weakness in the Office of Shared Services. Forty-nine control objectives were examined and a weakness was found in one. The weakness was reported by the internal auditors commissioned by the Office of Shared Services and was then confirmed by the Auditor General. There has been an investigation; it has been carried out by the Auditor General. What higher level of investigation does the opposition want? The Auditor General has satisfied himself with the action he has taken. The matter has been fixed; it has been resolved. There was a risk, but the risk did not emerge. There was no fraudulent payment, only the risk of one. There was nothing wrong with the financial statements, nothing wrong with the performance indicators and nothing wrong with 48 of the 49 control objectives. There was something wrong with one of the control objectives, it was discovered by internal audit and it has been fixed. There was no damage done, although the risk of damage did exist. Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) How the opposition concocts crises and froths at the mouth as it attempts to make a hit on a very successful government in a very successful state! The Auditor General has followed up an internal audit opinion and has qualified the accounts as a result of the detection of a control weakness in the Office of Shared Services. Forty-nine control objectives were examined and a weakness was found in one. The weakness was reported by the internal auditors commissioned by the Office of Shared Services and was then confirmed by the Auditor General. There has been an investigation; it has been carried out by the Auditor General. What higher level of investigation does the opposition want? The Auditor General has satisfied himself with the action he has taken. The matter has been fixed; it has been resolved. There was a risk, but the risk did not emerge. There was no fraudulent payment, only the risk of one. There was nothing wrong with the financial statements, nothing wrong with the performance indicators and nothing wrong with 48 of the 49 control objectives. There was something wrong with one of the control objectives, it was discovered by internal audit and it has been fixed. There was no damage done, although the risk of damage did exist. Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
(1)-(2) How the opposition concocts crises and froths at the mouth as it attempts to make a hit on a very successful government in a very successful state! The Auditor General has followed up an internal audit opinion and has qualified the accounts as a result of the detection of a control weakness in the Office of Shared Services. Forty-nine control objectives were examined and a weakness was found in one. The weakness was reported by the internal auditors commissioned by the Office of Shared Services and was then confirmed by the Auditor General. There has been an investigation; it has been carried out by the Auditor General. What higher level of investigation does the opposition want? The Auditor General has satisfied himself with the action he has taken. The matter has been fixed; it has been resolved. There was a risk, but the risk did not emerge. There was no fraudulent payment, only the risk of one. There was nothing wrong with the financial statements, nothing wrong with the performance indicators and nothing wrong with 48 of the 49 control objectives. There was something wrong with one of the control objectives, it was discovered by internal audit and it has been fixed. There was no damage done, although the risk of damage did exist. Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr T. Buswell : How do you know? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Auditor General is satisfied with that. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to second-guess the Auditor General. Is he saying that the Auditor General is negligent in not conducting a further inquiry? Is that what he is saying? Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Auditor General has been negligent in the way he has handled this issue? Is he saying that Ernst and Young has been negligent in the way it has handled this issue? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ernst and Young is aware of the risk and has not pursued the risk right down to the final detail? He is a fraud; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a fraud. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Deputy Premier and Treasurer accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of being a fraud. That is clearly unparliamentary. I would hope that he would withdraw and apologise. Indeed, he has just restated the offending word. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Unfortunately, this is how the chamber can degenerate when interjections of that nature take place. I clearly heard a direct accusation. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I withdraw, and I understand why you clearly heard it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps the Treasurer would like to draw his answer to a close. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think that is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr E.S. RIPPER : The important point is that the financial statements are correct, the performance indicators are correct and 48 of the 49 control objectives were correct. The matter was identified by internal audit and fixed. I will say this - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Vasse! Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : When systems are being developed, there is a need for more people to have access to them than when they are finalised and in a mature position. It should not have happened, but I can understand some of the reasons it did.
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.