Page 3667 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(b) gives a scathing assessment of the department and reveals a lack of financial transparency, a lack of leadership and strategic direction, and a failure to make promised administrative savings;
(c) reveals that political influence has led to the department not delivering core business and that political expediency is more important than financial control; and
(d) makes recommendations in relation to improved financial management, better future planning, and departmental and government restructures to better align the department’s and Government’s service delivery to core business;
(2) notes also that the poor performance of the department is a result of a lack of ministerial leadership, in particular from the former Minister, Mr Hargreaves; and
(3) calls on the Government to table a report into the progress of the implementation of the recommendations of the Strategic Budget Review.
Ernst & Young have given a scathing assessment of the Department of Territory and Municipal Services in their strategic budget review tabled on 20 August 2009. TAMS was created in 2006 as a result of a government-wide restructure during the 2006-07 budget. It was a merger of the Department of Urban Services, Environment ACT, Australian Capital Tourism, ACT Sport and Recreation, the ACTION authority, Canberra Stadium Authority, and the Office of Sustainability. Integration savings and economies of scale were cited as the justification in the context of the savage 2006-07 budget. These savings and administrative streamlining have never been realised.
The document reveals a lack of “financial discipline”, management have “limited visibility of the activities performed within the department”, the financial systems “appear not to rigorously adhere to core financial management requirements” and that cost allocation “is not transparent”. It also reveals that some activities are not being delivered due to “political influence”.
Since the department was established in 2007, almost $900 million has been spent without a performance framework. I repeat: over $900 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent without a performance framework. It is amazing that Ernst & Young has had to recommend the development of key performance indicators. This should have been done years ago.
The department was set up by Mr Stanhope to improve service delivery and efficiency. Almost three years on, the report gives a dreadful review of Mr Stanhope’s creation. Given the depth and breadth of the criticism, it is now obvious why the Chief Minister delayed tabling the document for so long. Mr Stanhope used every excuse in the book to try and stall making the document available to the Assembly. After months of pressure, Mr Stanhope finally gave in.
The report is now more than eight months old and half the recommendations should have been implemented. Eleven of the 22 recommendations had a deadline of before
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .