Posted on 12. Jun, 2014 in News
According to the Auditor General, the Napthine Government is “unable to demonstrate high levels of integrity or value for money” after it sacked thousands of public sector workers and outsourced jobs to private contractors.
The Auditor-General condemned the Napthine Government for its failing and inefficient processes of so-called appointments, engagements and consultancies with private providers.
Under Denis Napthine, Government Departments cannot demonstrate adequate standards of planning, management and value-for-money. Denis Napthine’s so-called ‘cost efficiency’ efforts have failed.
Quotes attributable to Ms Hutchins:
“Denis Napthine said his job cuts and outsourcing would make Government more efficient, but it’s the opposite.”
“Under Denis Napthine, the delivery of our most essential services is in doubt – riddled with evidence of inefficiency and incompetence.”
“Denis Napthine’s ‘sustainable government initiative’ is simply unsustainable having spent millions of dollars on outsourcing while sacking thousands of public servants.”
The Auditor General found:
• While the departments reviewed largely followed VGPB’s specific, mandated requirements for engagements of their size and complexity, the documentary evidence falls well short of demonstrating that these engagements achieved value for money.
• Departments had not delivered on the VGPB’s requirement that, ‘Government and public officials must be able to demonstrate high levels of integrity in processes while pursuing value-for-money outcomes.
• Departments could not adequately and consistently demonstrate that engagements were:
– Well planned—as they did not document the essential planning work used to justify the use of external resources, identify and manage risks, and choose a preferred procurement approach.
– Effectively procured—as they had not adequately assessed the overall impact of exemptions, the way they used panel appointments requiring only one bidder and the use of variations on value for money.
– Well managed—as they could not show how they had consistently monitored progress and performance and appropriately managed risks.
– Comprehensively evaluated—in fact the opposite was true, as there was systemic failure to evaluate performance to confirm that the intended value-for-money outcomes had been achieved and to distil and apply the lessons learned.