United Nations General Assembly: Fifth Committee
8 May 2007
Items 116, 117,122,123,132 Governance and Oversight
Statement by Phillip Taula
First Secretary
Permanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations
On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand
(as delivered)
I have the honour to speak on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand on the terms of reference of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee and the strengthening of the OIOS. I thank the Controller for introducing the revised draft terms of reference of the IAAC, Under Secretary-General Ahlenius for introducing the papers relating to the OIOS, and Mr Saha for introducing the reports of the ACABQ.
It has been 18 months since the General Assembly decided to establish an IAAC to assist it with its oversight responsibilities. Last fall, GA resolution 61/245 included important decisions on the role of the IAAC, its size, and the criteria for membership. As the revised terms of reference are now before us, this is the moment to put an effective IAAC into operation.
The revised terms of reference go a long way to resolve the ambiguities in the draft presented last year, especially by making clear the purely advisory role envisaged. We note the specific textual changes suggested by the ACABQ, which we can clarify in the informals. For us, the big issues are the scope of the IAAC responsibilities, ensuring the required expertise, and the selection process.
We observe that the ACABQ envisages broadening the scope of IAAC purview to embrace the full range of OIOS activities. We are open to the argument that the broader oversight universe should be covered, but had seen merit in a sharp technical focus. A widening of the IAAC scope should not be so broad as to prevent the definition of clear and verifiable qualifications for membership.
The selection process is critical to a good result. Ultimately, the decision belongs to Member States. We are open to a range of means of identifying possible candidates, but stress the importance of independent expert verification of qualifications.
Concerning the strengthening of the OIOS, we very much appreciated the clear vision set out by Ms. Ahlenius in the OIOS response to the report of the Steering Committee on oversight and governance. We also welcome the restraint with which Ms. Ahlenius has used the supplementary resources provided at the end of 2005. We are open to proposals to shift resources to inspection and evaluation functions, but recall that the General Assembly had provided the 39 positions for specific purposes. Circumstances change, but it makes sense to understand the requirements comprehensively, through the new budget for 2008-09 and in light of the outcome of the review of the Investigation function. In the meantime, the ACABQ report on Strengthening of the OIOS has offered a sound path forward on which posts to establish.
Concerning the budget process for OIOS, our delegations have long been concerned to ensure the operational independence of OIOS and to avoid the appearance of OIOS having to negotiate its resources with the objects of its work. We envisage a continuing role for the Secretary-General in the preparation of the budget, given that OIOS remains, after all, an arm of the Secretariat. However, operational independence can be secured through the envisaged role of the IAAC, which would review OIOS work plan and budget, and advise the General Assembly accordingly. Operational independence will be further enhanced by the proposal to allow OIOS to have the flexibility to manage its budgetary resources as a pool, and to deploy them in accordance with evolving risk.
Mr Chairman
The issues before us are part of the unfinished business of the Summit Outcome. Since then, much more work on governance and oversight has been commissioned, such as on risk management, and results-based management. It is critical now to get the essential pieces of our oversight architecture in place to provide a sound platform for the further developments that are even now in train.
Thank you, Mr Chairman