UNGA 60
Fifth Committee
Statement by Mr Phillip Taula, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of New Zealand,
On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand
On Summit Outcome: Revised Estimates
14 December 2005
Mr Chairman
I have the honour to speak on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We thank Mr. Warren Sach and Mr. Saha for introducing the reports of the Secretary-General and the ACABQ on the revised estimates, and we appreciate receiving the report on the resource requirements of the OIOS.
Mr Chairman
We have eagerly awaited the introduction of these reports for two reasons. First, they allow us to move forward in implementing key aspects of what our leaders agreed to over three months ago, while being clear that other elements remain to be presented. Second, the revised estimates enable a comprehensive picture of resource requirements for the coming biennium. While the revised estimates and the proposed programme budget for 2006-07 are procedurally separate, it helps to understand them in association with each other.
Mr. Chairman
This has been a difficult document for the Secretary-General to prepare in the limited time available. We discern in the revised estimates various types of proposals. We think the ACABQ is right to focus on those issues that are ripe now and to avoid prejudging the results of work still underway in the General Assembly. In any event, these estimates are not the last word. Some issues in the Outcome Document were more fully developed than others. As the ACABQ aptly points out, further budgetary revisions will need to be presented as soon as possible, in the light of decisions the General Assembly will take on reform and other aspects of the Outcome Document.
Mr. Chairman
The revised estimates contain important proposals concerning ethical conduct and oversight. While details will be best explored in the informal consultations, the CANZ delegations record their general support for the approach taken by the Secretary-General.
We reiterate our support for the immediate establishment of an Ethics Office with the functions described by the Secretary General. We believe that it is in all of our interests to ensure the highest ethical standards, and that coordination of these efforts should be vested in an Ethics Office as a means of ensuring a common approach in this multi-faceted organisation.
The revised estimates contain a variety of resource proposals. To save time, we will not comment on them all, as we are broadly comfortable with the recommendations made by the ACABQ, with two main exceptions.
First, we support the Secretary-General’s resource request for the establishment of the Peacebuilding Support Office. We do not believe this hinges entirely on whatever the General Assembly decides as to the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission.
Second, we had understood the Standing Police Capacity proposal to have been clearly mandated and to have been developed in close consultation with the relevant experts who participate in the work of the C-34. We see no reason to delay creation of this capacity unnecessarily.
I would add that the enlargement of the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is a priority which responds to one of the most precise mandates in the Outcome Document. We believe this is appropriate recognition of the enhanced status of the human rights pillar in the UN. But whether the baseline for the envisaged doubling of regular budget resources is 2004-05 or 2006-07 is for the General Assembly to decide.
We strongly support increasing the capacity of OIOS, and ensuring its operational independence. While we expect a comprehensive plan of action to flow from the external review of oversight, the immediate need recognized by the World Summit to bolster the audit and investigation capacity in OIOS is pressing.
We believe the fraud and corruption functions proposed by the Secretary-General are important, even if not directly related to the Outcome Document. It is important to get a clear idea of how work in this area will proceed.
Mr. Chairman
The question of how to finance the revised estimates is very important. Our delegations are strong advocates of the discipline intended by the Contingency Fund rules contained in resolutions 41/213 and 42/211. The Secretary-General does tell us, however, that the Contingency Fund rules did not envisage the present circumstances.
Generally, we think the Secretary-General should have made a greater effort to meet new requirements by reallocation. We are thus ready to join with others to exhaust the opportunities for such redeployment. Our unambiguous priority, however, is to put into effect the decisions of our Leaders, even if full absorption is not possible.
Mr Chairman
In conclusion, we look forward to working speedily and constructively with other delegations to implement what our leaders have agreed together.