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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4239 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

a short answer, everybody takes the allotted time and you get a whole lot of unnecessary verbiage. Also, the restrictions do not allow for continuing questions when particular issues need a number of questions. When the next Assembly considers how we run the estimates process in the ACT, I hope that we take the broadest view so that we can have the greatest transparency of process.

On the whole, there are some good points about what we do in the estimates process in the ACT, but I must raise concerns about the information that was provided in some annual reports. At times it was confusing and it was not clear what was being presented. As Ms McRae said, there were some excellent reports, but I think we need to look at trying to upgrade information and the way in which information is presented through annual reports.

There were a number of discussions about some of the elements of the output data statements and performance statements that were provided. Obviously, this relates to the impact of the introduction of accrual accounting. Even though the ACT has been a leader in the introduction of accrual accounting, we cannot suggest that this is such a new system that there is no information on what has been done in other jurisdictions. Some aspects of output data and performance statements have been examined and used by the Commonwealth Government for a number of years. At times during our questioning it did not seem that people were taking account of work that had been done elsewhere in the development of annual reports and budget processes. I am sure that, along with the examination of the estimates process, this will be taken up further and we will get a system that is the best in Australia, which of course is what we are aiming for.

In discussing the openness of the process, I mention that at times one felt that there was no real effort to answer the questions. If a witness could find a quick and easy way to answer a question or slightly misinterpret what information was being asked for, that was the easy way to go about it. This is a sad reflection on what we are trying to do within the ACT, which is to have a bureaucratic and government process that is open and transparent, so that people can understand what is going on, where money is being spent, what services are being provided and how we can continue to improve the situation in the ACT. I am hoping that there will be a less adversarial approach to the estimates process in the future; that we can work towards getting the best outcome for the ACT community and for the ACT electors.

I want to mention a couple of issues in a little more detail. Disability Services awarded six separate contracts to a company called Fame, even though they were all for interrelated matters. The explanation of how this was gone about was very unsatisfactory, for several reasons. It was concerning that what should have been a contract for nearly $150,000 was let in six separate parcels. The reason given was that they were not sure whether they would continue, so they were doing it stage by stage. It was also said that you did not need to go out to an open tender for this contract, even though it was for up to $150,000, because the group that was awarded the contract was known by some of the people in Disability Services. This was very advantageous.

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