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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 726 ..

As with last year, a frustrating search of several different places in reports was required to find related information and data. Three ministers, the Minister for Urban Services, the Minister for Arts and Heritage, the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Environment, are responsible for the good governance and accountability of elements of the Department of Urban Services and their related agencies. The committee expressed concern that such arrangements have the potential for problems with accountability and overlapping decisions and policies on the same issue.

The systemic situation across the ministerial responsibilities, portfolios, departments and agencies is replicated across the ACT government. It calls for rigour and a highly functional management and leadership style to ensure that those responsible for multiple portfolios, such as in this portfolio, get the best out of their department and ensure that there are sound management, communication and decision-making frameworks to deal with matters of overlap and to ensure that there are close working links between elements of the portfolio.

The recommendations in the committee’s report should be accepted by the Department of Urban Services and related agencies so that next year’s annual report may be presented with performance analysis as a major feature. Members of this place should expect no less. I commend the report to the Assembly.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (11.40): Mr Speaker, I will make a brief contribution to this debate. The introduction to the committee report suggests that the ministers—I and other ministers—did not make themselves readily available. We bent over backwards to find time to appear in person before this committee. We tried very hard to do that. I remember the many occasions when dates I would be available were indicated. The report does say that committee members were also not available on some of those dates.

There was a difficulty in finding an agreed timing for a lot of people, but the one word “readily” in this misrepresents the circumstances. This minister and others were always ready to appear and I want to put that on the record. In the end, we had a vast number of questions posed. Someone had certainly done some diligent background reading, but the import of those questions was simply that someone did not fully understand all the circumstances and the ways in which annual reports are presented. The questions showed a lack of understanding of annual reports and that they were asked for the sake of asking questions.

We now have a fairly voluminous report based on the very detailed responses to those questions, pointing out all the various reasons that the report was structured in the way it was. I want to put aside any suggestion that things were not well done, because Urban Services, as always, is a very competent, well-managed department and its annual report clearly reflects that.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cornwell) adjourned to the next sitting.

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