Page 4401 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ministers opposite, Mr Speaker, that there were a couple of occasions when, had we been provided with the information on time, there probably would have been a committee decision to recall witnesses to answer further questions. Unfortunately, the lack of information did not allow us to do that, because of the short timetable that we had.
However, on a positive note, there was a general improvement in the provision of information prior to the committee meeting, and the early establishment of the committee enabled us to decide what areas to concentrate on and to obtain additional information from the various program managers. I trust that they appreciated the additional time that they were given to enable them to provide that information for us. I am sure that this procedure reduced the amount of time spent in questioning Ministers and their staff, although, as the record will show, we did spend a number of hours - in excess of 70, I believe - questioning Ministers and their staff.
While Treasury did seek to ensure that such information was provided in a standard format, there is still a little more work required. It was unfortunate that the Health Department was still required to be prompted for some information provided by others; it was not in their information package. Last year, you may recall, Mr Speaker, the committee declined to question a Minister because of the failure of the Minister's department to provide information in sufficient time. While we did not quite get to that stage during these hearings, it was quite close on one or two occasions. There has been a gradual improvement in this area over the years and, while one does not expect perfection, we are moving slowly to a final solution to this problem.
Once again, Mr Speaker, we examined performance indicators. While there has been some improvement, insufficient information was provided on the achievement of these indicators when, clearly, they were able to be measured. One would expect departments and agencies to skite a bit when they were able to show that they had achieved their objectives, although it is important to ensure that the performance being measured is for real and not imaginary. We also felt, as a committee, that where changes in performance indicators were identified they should be stated. This, no doubt, would reduce the amount of questioning required.
Once again, Mr Speaker, the committee was frustrated at the apparent inability of the Government Service to come to grips with the attribution of costs and the devolution of funds to agencies for their share of the rents paid by government agencies. This has been a longstanding problem that has been looked at by three estimates committees. Last time it was a systems problem, as we heard many times; a little bit like comparing apples with oranges. We were able to solve the problem this time because information was provided that showed how the start and finish estimates
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .