Page 2775 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Based on the methodology … provided by the Auditor-General.
Mr Elliott said,“Correct.” The Auditor-General felt strongly enough to write to the committee on this and, indeed, to cc Tom Elliott, the Acting Executive Director, Territory and Municipal Services. The most important part of the letter states:
The Audit Office did not provide the target figure of 83 percent for ACTION timeliness measure nor did it provide a methodology for its assessment. The Office has no role in the setting of ACTION performance targets or its measurement methodology. Indeed, the Audit Office is not involved in any agency’s budget process or the setting of performance indicators and targets.
The Audit Office understands the Department’s official intends to correct the record.
That was written to the committee on 3 June by Tu Pham. She was seeking to correct the record. The committee noted this and it sought clarification from the parties about the source of the figure and the reasoning behind its adoption by ACTION. Questions on notice were also asked about other indicators that ACTION used. As at the close of business on 12 June 2009 when the report was essentially ticked off, clarification had not been received.
It is of some concern, I think, that we did not receive clarification in that time. I think that this would have been a relatively simple one to clear up. It is not really clear what led to the confusion that led to the incorrect evidence given to the committee. But I think it was an important point. The important point to make, too, is that misleads, whether inadvertent or otherwise—and I am prepared to accept that this was an inadvertent mislead—often do cut off lines of questioning. When you are given the incorrect information, you are then unable to pursue further lines of questioning, because they often flow from the first question and the answer to that question. So misleads are important. Whether they are deliberate or whether they are inadvertent, they do throw inquiries off, and it is of concern.
It is also of concern to me, and no doubt to other members of the committee, that we did not, in the time that the committee had to consider this for the estimates report, receive a response from Mr Elliott, which would have been no doubt very helpful in our consideration. I draw that to the Assembly’s attention.
I raised earlier the issue of refusing to answer questions and not being able to answer questions. We have a number of other examples here in TAMS in the questions on notice. I provide just one example, but I think there are a number of others in TAMS along this line. This one was to the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services. Question on notice No 349 asks:
How much has been budgeted for 2009-10 for hospitality?
Once again, the answer is:
This question cannot be answered until after the 2009-10 Budget has been passed by the Legislative Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .