The audit says, “actual expenditure cannot be identified with certainty, but it is likely to exceed $1.46 million…”. How ironic for an organisation that has a homepage banner saying its clients “can learn about financial management”! writes political columnist MICHAEL MOORE.

The title “Public Trustee and Guardian” should say it all. Their vision is the “protection and support of rights, choices, security and justice for all persons in the ACT Community”. 

Unfortunately, a very different picture is painted by the ACT Auditor-General, Michael Harris.

The Public Trustee and Guardian in the ACT is Andrew Taylor. His organisation supports some of the most vulnerable members of the ACT community who require assistance in managing their lives. 

However, a scathing auditor-general’s report reveals an unfortunate waste of money by the organisation. 

Mr Taylor, as Public Trustee, argues that the auditor-general should have been looking for outcomes for clients, rather than focusing on internal administrative issues. Even so, the administrative issues are certainly telling.

The Public Trustee and Guardian acts as financial manager of last resort for people assessed by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It also undertakes an annual examination of the accounts maintained by private managers on behalf of people with impaired decision-making ability.

To be in this position of trust requires a squeaky clean approach to all financial matters. However, since the transfer of the guardianship functions of the Public Advocate to the Public Trustee and Guardian on April 1 2016, there have been serious administrative problems. This column just touches the surface of the problems identified by the audit.

Auditor-General Harris has identified huge cost blowouts and poor outcomes for money spent in a customer management system that has been deployed by the Public Trustee and Guardian since the time of the merger. 

Mr Harris argued: “Financial management services to protected persons and to examine accounts submitted by private managers have been poor”. 

In commenting at the release of the report, he argued: “Shortcomings have been identified across a range of governance, administrative and service delivery arrangements”.

The integrity, quality and care of the work and reports of the auditor-general are in marked contrast to that of the Public Trustee and Guardian.

Fraud management ought to be a very high priority for an organisation such as the Public Trustee and Guardian. Instead, the audit finds “fraud control and fraud risk management arrangements are poor”. 

As if this is not enough, the “Fraud, Corruption and Risk Mitigation Strategy is ineffective in providing a framework for the management of fraud risks in the organisation”.

The audit explained: “The strategy contains old and incorrect references and does not represent contemporary ACT Public Sector practices” and “the risk register, which identifies 11 fraud-related risks, is similarly ineffective in providing a framework for the management of fraud risks”.

The 137-page report details specifically the failures of the customer management system that was under implementation from 2017. Although the system was a prime focus of the Information and Communications Technology system, the audit found it “has been a failure”. 

Despite the costs it is not widely used in the organisation and is “irrelevant to most of the staff” and to “large areas of the organisation’s activities”. 

The audit suggested that “actual expenditure cannot be identified with certainty, but it is likely to exceed $1.46 million between 2017 and 2023”. How ironic for an organisation that has a banner on its home page stating that its clients “can learn about financial management”!

Is this simply incompetence or poor management? And who should be held accountable? The buck stops with the minister. In this case the Attorney-General, Shane Rattenbury. But what about the Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate, Kathy Leigh? Or will the blame be sheeted home to Andrew Taylor?

Blame is not the real issue. An auditor-general’s report of this kind should be a demand for urgent action and transparency. The question is, who is it that will stand up and explain what changes are being implemented, when and how things are going to be improved.

The system is broken. Action needs to be taken urgently. There is a legislative requirement for the government to table responses to reports of the auditor-general in the ACT Assembly. 

However, considering the previous performance of the Labor-Greens government, and despite the urgency, it will be very surprising if there is a substantive response before the election in October.

Michael Moore is a former member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and an independent minister for health. He has been a political columnist with “CityNews” since 2006.