Page 2385 - Week 11 - Thursday, 2 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Program 12.3 includes the activities of the Canberra Tourism Development Bureau. The Committee notes that the cost of rent of Bureau offices in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra is not included and as a result the sub-program under-estimates proposed expenditure by at least ten per cent. The Committee was advised that this was common to many agencies as rent is paid centrally as part of program 23. It is the Committee's view that this and other programs must include rent components to enable the Assembly to properly assess expenditure. Comment on this issue is made in paragraphs 2.26 and 6.26-27.
Also, the committee expressed concern about the $1.9m which it considers to be spent on promotional activities. I guess not one of us in this chamber would say that that $1.9m was an adequate amount of money, but we all know the constraints under which agencies work. I guess the important part is the monitoring to see just how effective that $1.9m is. It does not really matter whether one spends $1.9m, $7.9m or $1m; unless one knows how effective it is, it really has very little benefit. The report goes on to say:
The Committee also expresses concern about $1.9 million ... spent on promotion activities without a mechanism for monitoring and the effectiveness of the program. Whatever arrangements are put in place will be reviewed by the Estimates Committee next year.
I think that is very important and it needed to be read into Hansard.
The other area that I was particularly concerned about - and, again, it is not a matter of saying whether it is good, bad or indifferent - was the $43m for public transport. This includes payment from Department of Education and welfare concessions. That $43m is the amount of money that is spent by you and me over and above what is collected by ACTION for fares. It is very important that we should know how effective this public transport system is. The committee is not saying that the amount spent needs to be less or needs to be more, but I think the recommendation that the Government establish an independent review of the operations of ACTION is absolutely essential.
I understand that the last review was back in 1987. It was, I guess, only a piecemeal approach to the issue, and it is my hope that this independent review comes forward very quickly. Then all of us, both in the community and in this chamber, can well assess whether that amount of money is adequately providing an effective transport system for our city.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .