Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 291 ..
MR HUMPHRIES: Yesterday I took on notice a question from Mr Kaine about alternative uses for the quarterly report of the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure. I seek leave to have my response incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The response read as follows:
MR KAINE - Asked the Treasurer on 16 February 2000:
Will you, Minister, undertake to instruct your department to provide in future full, frank and informative information in these reports that actually is of some use to us, rather than the rubbish that is in this report, and secondly, do you not agree that in its present form each page of this so-called quarterly performance report might perform a more useful purpose if it were carefully tom into four pieces and stuck on a nail in a more appropriate place?
Supplementary: Given that the one report of failure against target, was in connection with objections against revenue collections, and we did not meet the target, will the Treasurer investigate, at the same time, whether it is the department's imposition of $50 objection fee, is actually discouraging Canberrans from exercising their democratic right to appeal against Government decisions that they believe to be unfair.
MR HUMPHRIES - The answer to the Member's question is as follows:
(a) The statistics provided in the variation schedule attached to the Performance Report to the Legislative Assembly for the December Quarter 1999-2000 are correct and there was a correctly reported increase of 180% in the number of appeals and litigation processed.
However, the accompanying explanation for the variation was not correct. It should have read:
The increase reflected the number of cases for commercial valuation for rates and land tax purposes, and also reflected a shift in resources to deal with litigation and appeal cases.
Indeed, the target for the financial year has been increased from 10 to 20 to reflect the above factors.
It is correct that compliance revenue per inspector is 149% over the target due to the successful outcome of a large compliance case. I believe that it is a useful indicator to assess the performance of compliance activity.
In future quarterly reports, more detailed explanation can be added where possible to improve their usefulness to the Assembly. Details such as abnormal and one-off compliance revenue assessments issued against
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .