Kharon,
I could take issue with the notion of one Inspector General though, it may be 'operationally expedient' in the short term, but as a long term fix – discuss?
I don't know that the I-G proposal was ever a "fix" in the context that I understand you to be thinking.
To me, the I-G proposal is about obviating the need for a continuing series of Senate activities to examine what/how/why/when these agencies are doing things in order to get some transparency. For example, the Auditor-General doesn't operate as a "fix" for each of the agencies examined - but the process does force the agency executives to carefully examine the "what/how/why/when" in terms of the potential fallout from public exposure. If an agency fails to protect the relevant Minister from embarrassment, then (in betting terms) the "fix" will soon be "in"!
Independent review processes just provide a public window to taking an agencies temperature - the relevant Minister will decide when things are too hot (and occasionally too cold). The I-G proposal is just one element in the broader "fix" and there are some obvious parallels with the US GAO and DOT I-G.
I should also add to other contributors' assessment of the effectivess of the CASA Board - in every iteration of the concept to date, they have comprehensively failed to serve any useful purpose.I do not know of any regulatory agency where the concept works. Maybe the first job for the I-G should be to examine the usefulness of the model and hopefully to provide the case to bury it forever.
Stay Alive,