Page 4090 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The auditor goes on to say:
The Audit Office maintains its strong view that on-going proper analysis of the actual incident data, together with other information, is essential to inform decisions …
And this is when she comes to the conclusion:
The Minister’s statement is misleading as it seeks to attribute views not expressed or inferred in the audit report.
Not only did she do the work, but then ACTAS is doing the work, and that work that looks at the suburban effect of the response times is actually then quoted by the minister, by the head of ambulance and the deputy head of ambulance to affirm that they are doing the right thing. It would appear that the auditor did the right thing, according to those three gentlemen, by getting there first. But that is unacceptable to the minister, because it led to criticism of the delivery of his service.
Ms Le Couteur, as chair, said that we all endorse the work done by the intensive care paramedics—as we do. What we do not endorse is the approach taken by the minister. He should apologise to the Assembly and withdraw the remarks that he has made.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Report 10
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (4.30): I present the following report:
Public Accounts—Standing Committee—Report 10—Review of Auditor-General’s Report No. 3 of 2008: Records Management in ACT Government Agencies, dated 18 August 2010, together with a copy of the extracts of the relevant minutes of proceedings
I move:
That the report be noted.
I will speak very briefly on this. The committee did a summary report on this issue, the Auditor-General made a total of 11 recommendations and the government agreed with 10 of them and agreed in principle with one of them, so that there were not in fact a huge number of issues here.
We did ask for public submissions but, unfortunately, received none. We did not receive the government’s submission until 16 months after the tabling of the audit report. The reason, I believe, for such a small number of public submissions was that at the same time the government was undertaking a review of the territory’s record keeping legislation. In fact, I attended some of the public hearings that were held as part of that process, because obviously what was happening was it was having two parallel processes on the same subject matter. I understand that some time, possibly in the spring sitting, the government is likely to introduce amendments to the Territory Records Act 2002, as a result of the public consultation that it has been undertaking.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video