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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2406 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The government is conducting a number of inquiries and reviews at the present time, and the committee notes, at several points, that this information will need to be on the table for a full picture to be developed of what needs to be done in particular areas, to address areas of need in the community.

In particular, the committee acknowledged the difficulties created by the government's reconfiguring of departments in the midst of the budget process. Nonetheless, the committee feels it is necessary to point out that reorganising departments in the middle of the budget process obviously puts great strain on the Treasury officials concerned, who have to reconfigure budget documents. It also makes it difficult for the Estimates Committee.

That was highlighted, in this case, by the fact that there were a series of budget papers presented. Budget Paper No 4 was originally provided on 25 June. A revised version was supplied on 18 July, after the committee had begun its work. The final version of that same budget paper was presented on 23 July.

This created a lot of confusion, with members working from different documents at different times. It was not helped by the fact that one part of the final version of Budget Paper No 4 had large sections of pages out of numerical order. These are problems which we expect to happen from time to time. We hope this will not be the case next year-unless the government intends a further reorganisation just before the budget is produced.

The Estimates Committee looked at issues relating to performance indicators. It was especially concerned to make sure that the performance indicators used in the budget documents-and also, to some extent, in ownership agreements-represented a good method of the public, and the Assembly specifically, being able to judge the effectiveness of the expenditure we incur in certain areas of activity.

There has been a process, since the use of performance indicators began, of revising, updating and discarding performance indicators. Removal or changing of indicators across output classes and portfolios was a matter that absorbed some time in the committee.

Some members were concerned that the removal and modification of indicators made comparisons over years difficult-and indeed that is the case. The committee does agree with the Treasurer, however, that irrelevant measures should be discontinued, and that some measures that have been discontinued-such as those relating to economic management-potentially need to be provided in some other form.

As a result of the decision of individual ministers to drop certain indicators, there are now less performance indicators than previously. Committee members expressed concern about the process whereby individual ministers made decisions which may be inconsistent with those of other ministers, when it comes to logical presentation.

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