Page 4216 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in some cases, the officers of those agencies were unable to tell us whether they had achieved those programs or those specific objectives that they considered important enough to mention specifically when the budget was drawn up. Again, I do not think we pulled too many punches. Paragraphs 2.24 and 2.25 state:
The Committee considers that when the Government foreshadows action in a budget paper or annual report under a specific program, that program should also account for what action was undertaken in response to that commitment in the agency's annual report ...
The Committee noted that, in a number of programs, the annual reports made no mention of specific projects and program objectives identified in the budget papers. The Committee was left uninformed, in some instances, as to where these specific projects had been implemented or the specific program objectives met. The Committee considers this to be unsatisfactory.
What more can we say? Should we drag the officers out into the street and publicly flog them? I do not think so. We expressed our opinion strongly in the manner that was available to us. I do not accept the criticism that this is a bland document. It states what we intended to say.
On a particular objective of the budget: We had an inability to determine how or whether percentage savings, established for some agencies, had been met. At the beginning of the year, we were told in the budget papers, "We are going to make a 2 per cent saving across the board". In these hearings, we could not be informed as to whether the 2 per cent had been achievable; and, if so, how. Again, we were quite specific in our recommendations. Paragraphs 2.33 and 2.34 state:
This Committee is disappointed that, in general, annual reports ... did not specifically identify savings on a sub-program basis, in most cases providing only aggregate savings. A notable exception was the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning ... Other agencies provided this information in response to questions raised during the hearings.
While the 2 per cent efficiency dividend is expected to cease after the current financial year, the Committee considers it important that agencies indicate where the savings have been made.
Again, what more could we say? We could not satisfy ourselves, in some cases, that the saving had been made. We merely say that, in future years, the committee will want to know and the agencies had better be in a position to provide it. In connection with next year's approach to this same problem, presumably, the process will be the same. We made some comments on that in paragraphs 2.26 to 2.30. I do not think that it makes much difference whether the committee is established in the same fashion as this year's committee was, or whether it is a committee of the whole. If nothing is improved, that committee will have the same difficulties next year, in satisfying themselves as to how and where the money was spent, as we had this year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .