Page 5226 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
5. Understanding of public service values covering ethical standards and a demonstrated self-awareness, professionalism and a proven commitment to the ongoing integration of work place diversity, participative work practices and occupational health and safety principles and practices.
Justice and Community Safety Directorate
(Question No 1778)
Mr Hanson asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 September 2011 (redirected to the Attorney-General):
(1) Did the ACT Government wait until 30 June 2011 to transfer $1 million within the Justice and Community Services (JACS) Directorate; if so, why.
(2) When did the JACS Directorate first become aware of the need to request the transfer of these funds.
(3) What were the reasons for the costs pressures identified for (a) overtime costs, (b) detainee costs, (c) building maintenance and (d) utility costs.
(4) Was a request made to utilise the Treasurer’s Advance to respond to these cost pressures; if so, what was the response; if not, why not.
(5) Did Output Class 1: Justice Services have $1 million which could be transferred to another output class; if so, why.
(6) What activities in Output Class 1 were reduced or deferred as a consequence of transferring these funds.
Mr Corbell: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The ACT Government finalised the Section 15 instrument under the Financial Management Act 1996 that transferred $1 million from Output Class 1 Justice Services to Output Class 2 Corrective Services in the lead up to the end of financial year to ensure sufficient cash funding was available for end of financial year processing of invoices.
(2) The option of using a section 15 instrument to transfer one off savings within the Directorate to assist in meeting cost pressures within Corrective Services was proposed to me in June 2011, as an alternative to seeking Treasurer’s Advance for the identified cost pressures.
(3) The reasons for the cost pressures identified in overtime costs; detainee costs; building maintenance and utility costs have been identified in Knowledge Consulting’s Review of Operations at the AMC. Government has since provided additional funding to Corrective Services in the 2011 12 Budget to assist in addressing these cost pressures.
(4) No. Wherever possible, the Directorate tries to manage cost pressures within its existing resources. Consequently, the transfer of available funding within the Directorate was identified as an appropriate option.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video