- 15
-
Director of Audit
I know that the role of the Director of Audit in relation to the Airport Authority has been widely debated. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have already pointed out that Section 15 of the Audit Ordinance provides that "Notwithstanding that he is not empowered by any Ordinance to audit, examine or inquire into the accounts of a person, body corporate or other body, the Director may audit, examine or inquire into the records and accounts of any person, body corporate or other body if he is so authorised in writing to do so by the Governor in the public interest...." Clause 32(7) of the Airport Authority Bill makes it clear that this section of the Audit Ordinance applies to the Airport Authority.
As the Airport Authority will be conducting its business in accordance with prudent commercial principles like the Mass Transit Railway Corporation and the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, its auditing arrangement should generally be on a par with the two corporations and other commercial organisations. Having the Director of Audit audit the annual accounts of a body to be run along prudent commercial lines, in place of a commercial auditor, would be unprecedented and it is unclear how such a departure from normal' practice would be received in the market place, for example, by the Authority's lenders and business partners.
The main point, Mr President, is that the Administration does not accept that auditing of the Authority's annual accounts by the Director of Audit would provide better protection of the public interest than the combination, and I emphasise, the combination of the powers provided in the current Bill and the Audit Ordinance.
I will now explain the Administration's position on a number of issues of
interest to Members.
Role of the public officer
Members have sought clarification as to how public officers on the Board can, in practice, act in the best interests of the Authority on the one hand, while safeguarding the public interest on the other.
All members of the Airport Authority including public officers have an obligation to act in the best interests of the Authority. This does not mean that by doing so, they will be acting against the public interest. The objectives of the Authority set out in Clauses 5(1) and 6 of the Bill take account of the interest of the community. In the final analysis, even Clause 6(1) which provides that the Authority shall conduct its business in accordance with prudent commercial principles will work to the benefit of the community of Hong Kong as it will minimise the need for more equity injection into the Airport Authority.
Page 40Page 41