Page 2687 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, when the committee looked at the matters raised in the report we noted that the audit also found that there had been insufficient reporting on the outcome of the redundancy programs, and that the Legislative Assembly and the public were unable to assess whether the program had been successful in achieving the objective of reducing the recurrent costs of government. It recommended that action should be taken to devise a suitable form of reporting, and that this should be included in future budget papers. We thought that, when you see that number of people leaving the service by way of redundancy packages, the Assembly should be regularly acquainted with what is happening and what the consequences are for the budget of such a program of redundancy, particularly as this place has shown a great deal of interest in the redundancy process. There have been a number of debates on it.
The audit also noted one other aspect that I think needs to be remarked upon; that is, that officers whose positions have been identified as excess and who cannot be redeployed and who do not take voluntary redundancy remain with their agency and are paid by the agency. This means that the agency is unable to generate the savings of a restructuring that it might undertake. The audit suggested that a review of this process would seem to be desirable, and the committee agrees with that. We note also that this is an issue for Government policy in relation to the performance of each of the agencies, and we do not pretend to tell them how to go about doing it.
On the question of overtime and allowances, the audit found that there were some areas where overtime was paid on a regular basis when there appeared to be no genuine requirement for the overtime to be worked. That is a matter that has been commented on in this place on many occasions. The Auditor-General finally has found cause to comment upon it also. He referred later in his report specifically to ACTION buses and he said this:
ACTION management should pursue alternatives to the current award and work practices which allow drivers' work shifts to include significant components of paid non-productive time and paid overtime.
The matter is now before the Assembly in an official way, through an Auditor-General's report, and we hope that the Government will take heed of that. The audit recommended also, in relation to allowances, that the practice of paying all continuing allowances as part of salary be reviewed. Instances where continuing allowances are being paid when employees are on leave or are not actually doing the work for which the allowances are payable need to be identified and consideration given to eliminating the payments. Where disability allowance payments are not appropriate under the relevant awards, the payments should cease. Finally, the audit report recommended that an independent expert review should be carried out to ensure that disability allowance payments are made only for days and times when the necessary working conditions exist.
These comments by the Auditor-General would indicate, I think, a rather sloppy approach to personnel management. Allowances, overtime payments and the like are often made in circumstances where they are not warranted. We do not know how much that has cost the public purse over the years. The Auditor-General has identified them as problems.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .