Page 3723 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Public Accounts Committee and the Revenue Office on the one hand and the Auditor-General on the other. The Auditor-General remains of the view that there should be a review and a reduction of the staff numbers there. The Revenue Office maintains that the comparisons used by the Auditor-General were not reasonable comparisons, and they dispute the Auditor-General's recommendation.
The Public Accounts Committee is not in a position to make a judgment on this matter. We do not discard lightly the comments made by the Auditor-General, but the arguments put forward by the Revenue Office are also quite persuasive. We are recommending that the Government have an independent staffing review of the collection agency of the Revenue Office conducted to see whether the Auditor-General's comments are justified. We believe that that should be done by an independent reviewer, not by the Revenue Office, and then it can be determined whether the Auditor-General is correct or not. Obviously, the Public Accounts Committee would like to see savings in public expenditure if they can be achieved by staff reductions; but we do not, on the other hand, want to see the capacity of the Revenue Office eroded by making staff cuts that are not justified. Since we are unable to make a judgment on the matter, it should be reviewed by an independent reviewer.
On the other matters in connection with those functions I mentioned that are at the moment not accountable publicly, the response from the Minister in each case is satisfactory to the committee. The Minister has indicated that he is taking action to bring these functions under the umbrella of public accountability under the Audit Act. He has indicated a timescale in which he expects to achieve that. The Public Accounts Committee is satisfied with that response.
The other element of the report is that having to do with driver licensing procedures. The Auditor-General looked at this in a fairly comprehensive fashion. He looked at issues such as proof of identity when somebody fronts up for a driver's test; establishing eligibility for a licence; the theory testing that is carried out; the practical driving testing; and some ethical issues associated with the whole process. He made some 15 recommendations on things he thought could be done to improve the performance.
Again, the Public Accounts Committee is satisfied from the response of the government agency that they have taken the Auditor-General's comments seriously. They are doing their best to comply and to take account of the matters raised by the Auditor-General. There was only one matter that came out of our hearing in that connection that we were a little concerned about. There seemed to be some implication on the part of the management of the Motor Registry that supervisors did not have a job of supervising, that it was almost improper for them to go and look over the shoulder of a subordinate to see what they were doing and whether they were doing it correctly.
We have made some comment in the report about the job of a supervisor. He or she may have tasks that they must perform in their own right as an officer and an employee of the registry, but they do have a very real and positive responsibility to supervise what their subordinates are doing. Otherwise, why call them supervisors? To suggest that it is improper to go and look over the shoulder of a subordinate, that the subordinate would somehow feel that they were being spied upon by their superior officer, we thought, was a rather odd approach to the responsibilities and tasks of a supervisor. It is something the Minister might have a look at.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .