Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4232 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

A lot of our commentary focuses on the requirement of the Assembly to know, as opposed to the Government choosing how to give information. It is a crossing of cultures. Assembly members want to know things, want to see material in a particular way and want particular information. Annual reports should reflect accurately what has happened over a year, but I do not think they have yet fully adjusted to the impact of accrual accounting and the new reporting processes.

We believe most fervently that it is time for the Assembly to have a really good look at what the estimates process is for. Under accrual accounting, the level of financial information available is fundamentally different to that which was available in the First Assembly when the first Estimates Committee was put together. It is time to have a thorough look at what the estimates process is really for, how it can best help the Assembly processes and how we can achieve this.

We recommended earlier this year, and we have recommended again in this report, a review of the estimates process. This time we have recommended that the review be done by the Assembly's Administration and Procedure Committee, given that they have carriage of the management of our standing orders, they have carriage of the management of the Assembly and they have good representation across the entire Assembly. We have listed that as the third recommendation, but it is one of the most important recommendations. We need to take stock of what has happened over the last three Assemblies and have a really good look at what the estimates process is for.

We need to see how the presentation of accrual accounting has changed, how information needs to be presented and whether there are perhaps better ways. Many a different idea has been floated. Each parliament grapples with this issue. Each parliament around Australia has a different way of dealing with the issue, although every parliament more or less now has an estimates committee and a review process. We are in no way advocating the removal of the estimates process, but we are asking people to have a long and thorough look at how the Assembly and the people of Canberra could be better served in other ways.

I come to the substance of some of the things that really worried us. Again we found that the presentation of material was sloppy, it was badly coordinated, there was no cross-referencing, and no real thought was given to the readership of annual reports. The quality of presentation was very uneven, and during the hearings we commented on the reports that we found absolutely outstanding and those that we found almost useless. Given the information presented in some of the reports, we may as well not have bothered. The accounts were sufficient in themselves. The words offered very little. We commented on those on the way through. We have not done a ranked scale of best to worst, but it would not be difficult for the bureaucrats to work that out. I think that all should try to emulate the best practice and the very best of the annual reports that we saw. When we did get annual reports in detail, the committee had far less trouble in coming to grips with where the Government was going and, as a consequence, offered far less criticism, because nothing was hidden and information was not withheld.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .