Page 2686 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS ELLIS (11.46): I just want to refer very briefly, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to report No. 9 by the committee. The family services subprogram, as we know, is an extremely important area of government administration. It was timely and correct that the Auditor-General look at it in the way that he did. The major areas of his examination covered management of the subprogram, review of the legislation, the relationship with non-government agencies, and other miscellaneous matters as they arose. The chair, Mr Kaine, is right inasmuch as the performance indicator area was an area of concern. Other than that, the comments made by the Auditor-General, the explanations and information supplied by the Minister to our committee, and the committee's consideration of that information, all came to the conclusion that, in very general terms, the family services subprogram was being administered and being delivered in a proper and correct fashion. I do not think it is unique to mention performance indicators, because they seem to be a continuing problem across many agencies within the bureaucracy. By the same token, they are being addressed uniformly. I think we need to look at that in the context of that statement. I join with Mr Kaine in commending this report by the PAC to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lamont) adjourned.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - STANDING COMMITTEE
Report on Review of Auditor-General's Reports Nos 8 and 9 of 1993
MR KAINE (11.48): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present report No. 10 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled "Review of Auditor-General's Reports: No. 8, 1993 - Redundancies, and No. 9, 1993 - Overtime and Allowances". I move:
That the report be noted.
The two reports that the Public Accounts Committee's report deals with are, first of all, audit report No. 8 of 1993, which had to do with redundancies in the public sector, and report No. 9 of 1993, dealing with an audit of overtime and allowances. Both of those audits were instituted by the Chief Minister in response, I imagine, to public concerns that have been expressed on these matters, and the Auditor-General duly undertook quite comprehensive audits.
In connection with redundancies, I note that the Auditor-General concluded that the use of redundancies had been effective in reducing future cost to the ACT Government. That conclusion was supported by the findings that, between 1 July 1991 and 30 June 1993, 472 officers, or 2 per cent of the ACT Government Service work force, had accepted redundancy payments; that the payback period for such payments was less than one year; and that there was no evidence of any discernible alteration of the quality of the ACT Government Service work force or the delivery of services in consequence of that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .