|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 3 - Annual reports of agencies
3.1
The committee considered all of the following reports to be 'apparently
satisfactory'. Comments are made to indicate where improved compliance with
legislative reporting requirements is expected.
Commonwealth authorities
Australian Maritime College
3.2
The committee has observed that the Australian Maritime College (AMC) again
failed to address a number of its legislative requirements under the Commonwealth
Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (the CAC Act). The committee reiterates
that while the details omitted are minor in nature, the AMC is still required
to report on all requirements under the CAC Act, and the committee expects the AMC
to comply with these requirements in the future.
3.3
The committee is also concerned that even though the AMC's previous
failures to appropriately date letters of transmittal have been noted in the
committee's reports Annual reports (No. 1 of 2005), Annual reports (No. 1 of
2006), and Annual reports (No. 1 of 2007), the agency has again
failed to provide a specific date with its letter of transmittal.[1]
3.4
Further, the AMC has omitted to include the statement that directors are
responsible for the preparation and content of the report of operations under section
9 of the CAC Act, and did not specify whether the report was made in accordance
with a resolution of the directors, as required under subsection 4(1) of the Commonwealth
Authorities and Companies (Report of Operations) Orders 2005 (CAC Orders).
3.5
The committee notes that as of 1 January 2008, the AMC will
integrate with the University of Tasmania.
Australian Maritime Safety
Authority
3.6
The committee commends the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) for
noting comments in the committee's Annual reports (No. 1 of 2007)
and including a reference to the factors, trends or events affecting its
performance, and the risks and opportunities it faced during the year, in the
compliance index of its annual report.[2]
Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority
Comments
3.7
The committee again notes that in its enabling legislation, the Australian
Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), is defined as a
statutory agency for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS
Act). Consequently, under section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act
1918, APVMA is required to report on any amounts paid to any advertising,
market research, or any related agencies during the financial year. The
committee reminds APVMA that if it has nothing to report against this
requirement, it should clearly indicate this with a nil entry.
3.8
The committee observes that APVMA also omitted to include the statement
that directors are responsible for the report of operations under section 9 of
the CAC Act, and did not specify whether the report was made in accordance with
a resolution of the directors.[3]
However, the committee notes that due to the change in the agency's governance
arrangements, at the time the annual report was produced, the board of
directors was no longer in place.
Operations and performance
3.9
The committee notes that due to a government decision arising out of the
findings of Mr John Uhrig's report, Review of the corporate governance of
statutory authorities and office holders (the Uhrig review), this is the
last year that APVMA will report under the CAC Act. As of 1 July 2007, APVMA became an authority administered under the Financial Management and
Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act). While the authority's powers and
functions have not changed, the board of directors has been replaced by an
executive manager (the chief executive officer), who is now responsible for the
governance and performance of the authority. Under the new governance
arrangements, the chief executive officer will receive advice and
recommendations from an advisory board.[4]
3.10
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) performed an audit of the
effectiveness of APVMA's key regulatory functions in 2006. Audit Report
No. 14 of 2006‑07, Regulation of Pesticides and Veterinary
Medicines, made six recommendations focussed on strengthening the
regulation of pesticides and veterinary medicines. APVMA has accepted and is
implementing all six recommendations.[5]
Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation
Comments
3.11
While the committee found that the Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation (FRDC) did include more entries in its indices this year, various
reporting requirements were still not listed in either the compliance or
alphabetical indices. In particular, the committee found it difficult to
determine if the FRDC had addressed reporting requirements under its enabling
legislation, the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act
1989 (PIERD Act), regarding any significant acquisitions or dispositions of
real property during the financial year.[6]
3.12
The committee is pleased to observe that, following the committee's
previous comments, the FRDC included details relating to the responsibilities
of its board committees in this annual report.[7]
3.13
However, the committee notes that a more detailed corporate governance
statement of the practices in place would be useful.
3.14
The committee commends the FRDC for clearly measuring its achievements
against key performance indicators, and for providing relevant information and
explanation where certain performance indicators were not achieved.
Operations and performance
3.15
The committee notes that the FRDC introduced a new funding framework in
July 2007 to provide greater flexibility to meet stakeholders needs.[8]
3.16
As of 25 September 2006, FRDC became the sole member, and gained control
of Seafood Services Australia, a company limited by guarantee. As a result, the
financial reports of both entities became consolidated from that date.[9]
Forest and Wood Products Research
and Development Corporation
Comments
3.17
The committee is disappointed that despite comments in its reports, Annual
reports (No. 2 of 2006) and Annual reports (No. 2 of 2007), the Forest
and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation (FWPRDC) has again
failed to include a compliance index or an alphabetical index.[10]
The committee again calls the FWPRDC's attention to subsection 6(1) of the CAC
Orders which quite explicitly states that reports 'must be constructed having
regard to the interests of users'.
3.18
Due to the absence of any form of index, the committee again encountered
significant difficulty in assessing whether the FWPRDC had satisfied its
reporting requirements under both the CAC Orders and its enabling legislation,
the PIERD Act. In particular, the committee was unable to locate information in
FWPRDC's annual report regarding any significant acquisitions or dispositions
of real property during the financial year, or details of any interest it holds
in companies. Under the PIERD Act, the FWPRDC is obligated to provide this
information.[11]
3.19
The committee also observed that the FWPRDC failed to appropriately date
the letter of transmittal, as required under the CAC Orders.[12]
Operations and performance
3.20
The committee notes that in 2007‑08, the FWPRDC will change into
an industry owned body to support the functions of research and development,
and marketing and promotion. The new body, Forest and Wood Products Australia,
will operate under the Corporations Act 2001.[13]
Grains Research and Development
Corporation
3.21
The committee notes again that despite comments made in previous
reports, readers are still referred to the Grains Research and Development
Corporation (GRDC) website for details regarding Freedom of Information Act
1982 (FOI Act) reporting obligations.[14]
The committee reminds the GRDC that information required under subsection 8(1)
of the FOI Act must be included in the body of the annual report, and expects
that the GRDC will comply with this requirement in future reports.
3.22
The committee also notes that in the GRDC's letter of transmittal, the
statement that directors are responsible for the preparation and content of the
report of operations, is made under schedule 1 of the CAC Act as opposed to
section 9 as required under paragraph 4(1)(d) of the CAC Orders.
3.23
The committee commends the GRDC for its clear reporting of the companies
in which it holds an interest.
Grape and Wine Research and
Development Corporation
3.24
The committee again noticed that the compliance index in this report was
not comprehensive, and due to the absence of an alphabetical index, the
committee encountered some difficulty in ascertaining whether the Grape and
Wine Research and Development Corporation (GWRDC) had complied with all
relevant statutory reporting requirements.
3.25
The committee notes its concern that despite a series of comments in previous
reports of the committee, the GWRDC has not attempted to demonstrate its
compliance with sections of the PIERD Act requiring information on the GWRDC's
activities involving patents or any interest it may hold in companies.[15]
Commonwealth companies
Australian River Company Limited
3.26
The committee notes that the Australian River Company Limited again omitted
to report on any legal proceedings on behalf of the company as required under
sections 300A(14)-(15) of the Corporations Act 2001, or details of any
shares, interests or options granted under sections 300(1)(d), and 300(5)-(7).
In addition, the auditor did not detail an opinion in the audit report as to
whether all information and assistance necessary to conduct the audit had been received,
as required under section 307 of the Corporations Act 2001. The
committee expects the company to take these requirements into consideration
when preparing future reports.
Australian Livestock Export
Corporation Limited
3.27
The committee observed that the Australian Livestock Export Corporation
Limited (LiveCorp), did not detail the experience of the company secretary, as
is required under paragraph 300(10)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001. The
committee further notes that while LiveCorp provides the names of officers of
the corporation, as required under paragraph 300(1)(ca), this information
should be provided as part of the directors report.
3.28
The committee notes the auditor did not detail an opinion in the audit
report as to whether all information and assistance necessary to conduct the
audit had been received, as required under section 307 of the Corporations
Act 2001.
Prescribed agencies
Dairy Adjustment Authority
3.29
The committee reaffirms its consideration that the Dairy Adjustment
Authority (DAA) annual report would benefit from a compliance index and a more
comprehensive alphabetical index.
3.30
The committee is disappointed that despite comments made in previous
reports, the DAA has not fully demonstrated its compliance with the Requirements
for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and FMA Act Bodies (Requirements
for Annual Reports).[16]
In particular, the committee notes that the DAA has again failed to provide a
summary table of resources by outcomes, and has not presented all required information
regarding consultancies in accordance with the mandatory proforma. The
committee reminds the DAA that as a prescribed agency under the FMA Act, it is
subject to the Requirements for Annual Reports, and the checklist provided in
Attachment F to those requirements. The committee restates its expectation that
the DAA will consider and incorporate these requirements when compiling future
reports.
3.31
The committee is pleased to note that the DAA reported appropriately
against its obligations under section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act
1918, regarding payments to advertising, market research, or any related
agencies during the financial year.
Senator Glenn
Sterle
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 31 March 2008 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
