Page 133 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
present a particularly limited examination of what is a vast amount of data gathered by varying methods. To ask the Assembly to acknowledge these statistics in isolation would be an oversimplification of the information provided, as this information can only be fairly interpreted in the context of the larger report.
It is important to note that in 1993 when the heads of government established the review of government service provision, it was to provide information and serve as a tool for government to use for strategic budget and policy planning. Information in the report has been used to assess the resource needs and resource performance of departments. It has also been used to identify jurisdictions with whom to share information on services.
The data in the report can also provide an incentive to improve the performance of government services by enhancing measurement approaches and techniques in relation to aspects of performance, such as unit costs and service quality. It may also help jurisdictions to identify where there is scope for improvement and promote greater transparency and informed debate about comparative performance.
As helpful and essential as this large collection of data is, it does make for a complex report which should not be used to make generalisations. Although interjurisdictional comparisons offer a level of accountability to customers, clients and citizens and expand interjurisdictional learning, consumers must be wary of the method of comparisons used under each measure. Not all data in the report relates to the same time period, and not all jurisdictions measure data collection with the same method.
One such example in this report is that it states that the ACT has the highest rate of childcare costs in Australia. The ACT does have expensive childcare costs, and the market sets these costs. Demand is elevated in the ACT, and the average income for Canberra households is relatively high compared to other states. This is combined with the fact that childcare workers in the ACT usually receive higher remuneration than many other jurisdictions. This example clearly points to the original intent of the report, which is to support interjurisdictional learning, particularly where governments have adopted policy approaches, such as paying childcare workers at a rate that recognises their importance.
I also refer to section 1.6, titled “Approach to performance measurement”. It is a section of the report which states that data may not be directly comparable if definitions or counting rules differ or they are so broad that they result in different interpretations—for example, depreciation rules—the scope of measurement varies—for example, waiting times for elective surgery—and the sample size is too small for statistical reliability.
There is also the issue of timeliness and accuracy. The report says:
Sometimes there is a trade-off between the precision of data and its timely availability—data that are provided in a timely fashion might have had fewer opportunities to undergo rigorous validation
However, as I said earlier, the Greens do share some serious concerns with regard to some of the results of the comparative data in the report, but, in order to make a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video