Page 4142 - Week 15 - Thursday, 17 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(3) Cost/benefit analysis of public sector agencies generally has not been undertaken in Australia. Consistent with A.C.T. Government Service (and Commonwealth) requirements as well as recognised good practice, the Economic Development Division reports on performance through annual report, corporate planning and Estimates Committee processes. In the case of particular projects such as the Casino and the Business Licence Information Service, specific benefits and costs are more readily identified and are provided in advice to government.
However, as I have said in previous replies to Mr De Domenico, the Economic Development Division is but one of a number of ACT agencies involved in creating the right environment for business development and improved employment opportunities, and eves if a cost/benefit analysis of the Division was possible, it would not be very meaningful.
(4) The cost of running the Economic Development Division, excluding the ACT Tourism Commission, for 1991-92 was as follows:
. Item $
Salaries 2,655,000
Admin/Operational 1.194.000.
Total Running Cost 3,849,000
Note: This figure does not include grants to the ACT Tourism Commission and the National Industry Extension Service Totalling $4.418m shown at page 11 of the 1992-93 Explanatory Notes, as these are not running costs.
The cost of running the ACT Tourism Commission in 1991-92 was as follows
Item
Item . . s
salaries s .1,648,000
Admin/Operational . _ . 439,000 .
Accommodation 847,
Sub-Total (not
including marketing) 2,954,000
Marketing 1-678.000
Total Running Cost 4,632,000
Note: This figure does not include Industry Payments of $1.797m sewn at page 50 of the 1992-93 Explanatory Notes as these are offset by income from these services of $3.299m shown at page 49 of the Explanatory . Notes..
4142
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .