Page 1182 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the electoral cycle, it is not appropriate to set a percentage target for learning and development costs. As noted on page 68 of the Commission’s 2010/2011 Annual Report, each staff member is allocated an average of $1000 in the Commission’s budget each year for learning and development. In addition, in Legislative Assembly election years, training is provided using in-house resources to election casual staff, with a structured on-line and face-to-face training program implemented for polling staff.
(15) The Commission’s target expenditure on learning and development activities of an average of $1000 per permanent staff member per year is expended on an average basis over several years, dependent in part on the electoral cycle and on each staff member’s personal learning and development requirements. In the lead up to a Legislative Assembly election, the opportunity to undertake formal training is generally reduced as staff are fully engaged on the election. In non-election years, learning and development expenditure may exceed the average yearly allocation. For example, $8760 was spent on external learning and development activities in 2009/2010. The Commission expects to meet its target expenditure on learning and development activities on an average basis over each 4 year election cycle.
Director of Public Prosecutions—annual report
(Question No 1993)
Mrs Dunne asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 February 2012:
(1) In relation to the 2010-11 annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), what resources would the DPP require in order to meet the demands placed on the office.
(2) To what extent has the wide range of efficiency initiatives, such as CASES, the new paralegal structure and the revision of records management, alleviated the resourcing pressures.
(3) What was the quantum of the efficiency dividend and other cost saving measures that the DPP was required to achieve in 2010-11.
(4) Were those targets referred to in part (3) met; if not, why not.
(5) To what extent did meeting those targets impact on service delivery.
(6) Given the wide range of matters dealt with at a practical level by the DPP during the reporting period, is the Attorney-General able to say whether the DPP considers it has a role to bring emerging policy matters to the attention of the Government; if so, what analysis did the DPP make as to policy issues that emerged during the reporting period.
(7) What policy suggestions or recommendations did the DPP make to the Government during the reporting period and how did the Government respond to those policy suggestions or recommendations.
(8) What was the total cost of staff learning and development during the reporting period as a percentage of total employee costs.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video