Chapter 2
Review of selected reports
2.1
The committee has selected the annual reports of the following bodies
for closer examination:
-
Department of Parliamentary Services
-
Department of Finance
-
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
-
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
-
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
-
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Department of Parliamentary Services
Background
2.2
The committee has examined recent annual reports of the Department of
Parliamentary Services (DPS) in detail, not only in its biannual examination of
reports under Standing Order 25(20), but also under its inquiry into the
performance of DPS during 2011-12. That inquiry found a number of deficiencies in
recent annual reports of DPS, particularly in relation to performance reporting.[1]
2.3
Recommendation 16 from that inquiry report states:
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary
Services provide more accurate, meaningful and transparent information,
including information about costs and construction projects undertaken in
Parliament House, in its annual report.[2]
2.4
Following that inquiry, DPS has advised the committee that reviews were
to be undertaken to address the issues raised concerning the form and content
of the annual reports and the departmental key performance indicators (KPIs);
and that the implementation of most of the changes arising from these reviews
would occur in the 2013-14 annual report.[3]
2.5
In its current inquiry into DPS, the committee received advice that DPS
engaged Callida consulting to undertake a comprehensive review and make
recommendations on the appropriate form and content of the 2013-14 annual
report and subsequent reports:
Callida considered DPS Annual Reports 2010–11, 2011–12, and
2012–13 and DPS Portfolio Budget Statements over the same years. It reviewed
the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's Requirements for Annual
Reports, 2014 and other relevant sources including the practices of public
sector agencies which had been recognised for the high standard of their
reports in the Institute of Public Administration Australia's annual report
awards.
Callida was asked to develop and provide specific advice on
actions which could be taken to address those areas both the Committee and
Callida observed as having potential for improvement, and did so. These
included recommendations around the provision of information and data in the
annual report as well as the annual report process itself.[4]
2.6
The committee was further advised that the final cost of this review was
$16,192.[5]
2.7
As part of its current inquiry into DPS, the committee has again
scrutinised the current annual report of DPS, particularly in regard to term of
reference (a) progress in implementing the recommendations of the committee's
2012 reports into the performance of the Department of Parliamentary Services.
The committee's findings will be presented in its final report which is
expected to be tabled later this year.
Design and formatting
2.8
The 2013-14 annual report of DPS prominently features a series of
photographs by photomedia artist, Ms Anne Zahalka, which were commissioned to
mark the 25th anniversary of Parliament House. It is noted that the
probity of the administrative processes underlying this commission has been the
subject of significant examination by the committee through both its recent
estimates hearings and as part of its current inquiry into of DPS.
2.9
Advice to government agencies in the Printing Standards for Documents
Presented to the Parliament advise in relation to illustrations that:
Line drawings, graphs, charts, photographs and other
illustrations may be included, provided that they add value to the
understanding of subjects discussed in the text.[6]
2.10
The committee reiterates its preferred approach to the content of annual
reports which is for minimal use of extraneous information such as photographs.[7]
2.11
The report is generally well presented. However, it was noted that there
were some problems with footnotes relating to the numbering sequence within
chapters and missing citation details.[8]
Secretary's review
2.12
The committee notes that the Secretary's review highlights not only
achievements for the year under review, but also discusses some challenges
facing the department. Of particular note again this year was the budget situation
facing DPS. In her review, the Secretary, Ms Carol Mills, noted that the
2013-14 financial year was a time of 'budgetary constraint' and this affected
various aspects of the department's work. Specifically:
...the budget deficit affected DPS' ability to continue to
deliver some elements of the transformation agenda foreshadowed last year.
Fiscal constraint also contributed to less than hoped for results against some
existing key performance indicators in building maintenance and delays in other
areas, such as full implementation of the recommendations of the visitor
experience review...
...we focused efforts on making savings which—in the short
term— have relatively lesser impact on the amenity of the building, and
identifying further changes which could be made but would more significantly
impact on service delivery. This focus resulted in savings where work (such as
cleaning of the building's exterior) was deferred. We increased efficiencies by
streamlining internal processes, including reviewing our organisational structures
to ensure that resources were directed towards maximising the support DPS
provides to the Parliament.[9]
2.13
Against this setting, the Secretary noted the $5.5 million
supplementation DPS received in the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook
(MYEFO) and additional funding of $15 million each year over the forward
estimates in the 2014-15 budget. While acknowledging that this additional funding
provides more certainty, the Secretary, noted that pressure for budgetary
reform will continue.[10]
2.14
Other areas highlighted by the Secretary during the year under review
included preparations and support for the 44th Parliament; the 25th
anniversary of Parliament House celebrations; progress in response to the 2013
review of visitor experience at Parliament House; the creation of the Chief
Operating Officer Division, bringing together planning, governance and
corporate functions; and the introduction of a range of ICT innovations
following the implementation of the Parliament of Australia Strategic ICT Plan.[11]
Parliamentary Librarian's review
2.15
The Parliamentary Librarian's review provides a good account of the work
of the Library during 2013-14. One area highlighted was the impact of the 2013
federal election which saw the 37 new members elected to the House of
Representatives and 14 new senators elected (although only two senators
commencing their term during the reporting period). Providing assistance to the
new senators and members was a major focus of the Library and involved the
following:
-
the Parliamentary Librarian presenting induction sessions;
-
personalised contact officers trained and assigned to each new
parliamentarian to provide guidance on Library products and services; and
-
orientation and training sessions for new Senators' and Members'
staffers.[12]
2.16
To support the commencement of the 44th Parliament the
Library produced the Briefing Book publication to provide Senators and
Members with a strategic level snapshot of key public policy issues. Information
packages which were tailored to electorates and circumstances for each new and
returning parliamentarian were also produced.[13]
2.17
The Parliamentary Librarian also noted the continued budget pressures
during 2013-14 and the effects:
The Library continued to downsize and plan in anticipation of
the decreasing levels of appropriation across the Department of Parliamentary
Services' forward estimates, and the corresponding projected increase in the
Department’s operating deficit.
...
Budgetary issues will continue to be closely managed. We will
maintain a careful approach to the use of resources to continue to deliver
services as efficiently as possible. The Library will continue to report
regularly to the Presiding Officers and to the Joint Standing Committee on the
Parliamentary Library on these matters.[14]
Performance information
2.18
As noted above, the Secretary had previously advised the committee that
the department's KPIs were to be reviewed as a result of the committee's
inquiry into DPS. The departmental program structure and KPIs as set out in the
2013-14 PBS, are significantly abbreviated from the 2012-13 structure.
2.19
Program deliverables have been omitted entirely from the PBS for 2013-14,
significantly reducing the amount of information about the services delivered
by the department. For example, the 2012-13 PBS for DPS included the following
deliverables for subprogram 1.2.1 – security services:
|
Extent to which security procedures are followed
|
Percentage of reported security incidents dealt with
in accordance with agreed procedures (target: 100%).
|
|
Validation of security procedures
|
The extent to which each validation was successful
(target: 100%).
Percentage of security validation program achieved
(target: 100%).
|
|
Security incidents
|
Number of reported security incidents.
|
|
Number of security services
|
Number of hours of internal guarding (PSS)-Monthly
average.
Number of hours of external guarding
(AFP-UP)-Monthly average.
Number of scheduled emergency evacuation exercises completed.
|
|
Performance of security systems
|
- card management system (target: 100%);
- radio communications equipment (target: 100%);
- x-ray
equipment/walk-through metal detection (target: 95%);
- CCTV system (target: 98%);
- electronic door locks (target: 99.8%); and
- alarms (target: 99.9%).
|
|
Cost of security services
|
Staff costs for:
- internal guarding (PSS);
- external guarding (AFP-UP);
Direct costs of Pass Office operations.
Total cost of subprogram 1.2.1
|
2.20
While the performance discussion on security within the 2013-14 annual
report does provide some of the information above, the level of detail has been
reduced from the previous year. This contrasts with the only performance
information for security services provided in the 2013-14 report which is a KPI
measure of 85 per cent in an occupant satisfaction survey.
2.21
The departmental outcome remains unchanged from the previous year and
the department continues to have the same two programs:
-
Program 1 – Parliamentary Services
-
Program 2 – Parliament House Works Program
2.22
However, the sub-program level of reporting for program 1 has been
removed.
2.23
A comparison of the old and new KPI framework is presented below.
|
Program
|
2012-13 KPIs
|
2013-14 KPIs
|
|
Program 1
Parliamentary Services
|
Subprogram 1.1 – Library Services
1.1.1 Research services
Client satisfaction with requests
and publications
1.1.2 Information access services
Client satisfaction with
information access services
Subprogram 1.2 – Building and Occupant Services
1.2.1 Security Services
No KPIs listed in PBS
1.2.2 Facilities Services
Customer satisfaction – High level
of building occupant and/or user satisfaction with facilities contracts for
catering; number of complaints about catering
Visitor satisfaction – Number of complaints about visitor services;
number of complaints about the Parliament Shop; number of complaints about
catering
Subprogram 1.3 – Infrastructure Services
1.3.1 Building infrastructure services
Extent to which building condition
is maintained - Building Condition Index
Extent to which landscape condition is maintained - Landscape
Condition Index
Condition and ageing of engineering systems - Engineering Systems
Condition Index
Customer satisfaction - High level of building and/or user
satisfaction with facilities contracts for cleaning, pest control and
sanitary services Number of complaints about cleaning, pest control and
sanitary services
Visitor satisfaction - Number of complaints about cleaning, pest
control and sanitary services
1.3.2 IT infrastructure services
Customer satisfaction - High level
of user satisfaction. Number of user complaints
Subprogram 1.4 – Parliamentary Records Services
1.4.1 Broadcasting services
Customer satisfaction - High level
of customer satisfaction. Number of customer complaints
1.4.2 Hansard Services
Customer satisfaction - High level
of customer satisfaction. Number of customer complaints.
|
Number of visitors
Number of visitors to Parliament House total; participants in general
public tours; participants in school tours; participants in other tours
Number of virtual visitors to Parliament House
Number of functions and events held in Parliament House (official
visits; Parliamentary; non-Parliamentary) Number of visitors to Parliament
House (total; participants in general public tours; participants in school
tours; participants in other tours
Number of virtual visitors to Parliament House
Number of functions and events held in Parliament House (official
visits; Parliamentary; non-Parliamentary)
Visitor satisfaction
(Target: 85% satisfaction)
Visitor satisfaction with services – visitor services (including
tours and information); the Parliament Shop; visitor catering; website;
building access and parking.
Building occupant
satisfaction
(Target: 85% satisfaction)
Occupant satisfaction with services – IT services; Help Desk;
Library; Broadcasting and Hansard; Security; Building maintenance; other
services
Timeliness targets met in service delivery
Percentage of timeliness targets met in service delivery (IT
services; help desk; Hansard; research services and publication; information
access services; maintenance services)
|
|
Program 2
Parliament House Works Program
|
Extent to which design
integrity is preserved - Design Integrity Index
|
Asset Custodianship
Design Integrity Index (target:
90%)
Building Condition Index (target: 89-92%)
Landscape Condition Index (target: 90%)
Engineering Systems Index (target: 90%)
|
2.24
The omission of program deliverables with measureable targets from this
year's PBS significantly reduces the amount of measureable performance
information available.
2.25
The Department of Finance and Deregulation Guidance for the
Preparation of the 2013-14 Portfolio Budget Statements advises that 'deliverables':
-
are produced by the program in meeting its objective; and
-
are tangible, quantifiable products of a program.[15]
2.26
This Guidance also advises that agencies are required to include details
of program deliverables:
The aim of program reporting is to provide a transparent and
consistent information to Parliament and the public about Government
activities. The Commonwealth Programs Policy and Approval Process (Program
Policy) sets out guidance on establishing programs
(www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/commonwealth-programs-policy.html).
The Program Policy states that "in addition to
resourcing information, agencies are required to provide details of the program's
objects and non-financial performance, including the deliverables and key
performance indicators for each program." This information is required to
provide an understanding of a program’s purpose, how much funding it requires,
what it will deliver to the community or specific target group and a measure of
its effectiveness.[16]
2.27
The reader is not assisted by the 'Reader's guide' at the front of the
DPS annual report which erroneously refers to the performance of deliverables
being presented in Part 3 of the report:
DPS’ financial performance as well as its performance against
the deliverables and key
performance indicators set out in the Department’s Portfolio Budget
Statements 2013–14 and Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements
2013–14.[17]
2.28
Notwithstanding the omission of deliverables from DPS' 2013-14 PBS, the
Parliamentary Library has chosen to continue to include results against the
previous year's listed deliverables and these are presented in the Library's
performance report for research services and information access services. The
Parliamentary Library is commended for continuing to provide performance data for
deliverables despite their removal from the PBS.[18]
2.29
Under the revised KPIs there is a focus on measures relating to visitor
services. The core services and facilities provided by DPS to support the
occupants of Parliament House and the functioning of Parliament are to be
measured by an occupant survey with a target of 85 per cent satisfaction. There
are also timeliness measures for some of these services.
2.30
The committee questions the value of relying so heavily on occupant
satisfaction surveys as a measure of performance for the core services provided
by DPS. For example, Program 1 includes the objective of 'maintain Parliament
House as a safe and accessible workplace and public building'. Presumably, this
objective relates to the provision of security services. The only KPI relating
to security is a target of 85% in a building occupant satisfaction survey. However,
it would be expected that the level of performance for the delivery of security
services at Parliament House would take into account whether the provision of
the service was in line with relevant procedures, policies and legislation. The
effectiveness and reliability of security infrastructure and equipment, the
number of security incidents and timeliness of responses to such incidents
would also presumably be a basis for an assessment of performance in security
services. Relying on occupants of Parliament House to provide an assessment of
the department's performance in the delivery of this particular service through
a client survey appears to be an inadequate measure of performance.
2.31
While client surveys do provide a measure of performance and can provide
a useful measure in some types of programs, they should complement the
department's own standards and benchmarks of effectiveness and efficiency for a
particular service.
2.32
The committee notes that performance results for 2013-14 KPIs relating
to building occupant satisfaction and timeliness targets were unable to be
presented for a number of items as some areas were not surveyed for the year
under review. It was noted at footnote 5 to the KPI table for program 1 that:
DPS conducts a client satisfaction survey once per
Parliament, with the survey of the 43rd Parliament taking place in May and June
2012. DPS will survey the 44th Parliament in the 2014–15 year. DPS' proposed
increased frequency of measurement of timeliness and satisfaction across a
number of service delivery areas was impacted by budgetary constraints in
2013–14 but will be put into effect in 2014–15.[19]
2.33
The committee records its concern that performance information was not
available for some areas for 2013-14, and would expect to see relevant surveys
which provide an assessment of performance to be prioritised, even in a tight
budgetary environment.
2.34
In summary, there is no clear explanation articulating the benefits of
the revised structure, specifically how it will contribute to more accurate,
meaningful and transparent performance information. The committee is concerned
that, given its recommendation on the annual report in its previous inquiry requesting
more information be provided in the report; and following a review of the form
and content of the report, the new structure appears to have resulted in a
reduction of the amount, and usefulness, of information available.
Financial performance
2.35
The committee notes the comprehensive discussion on the department's
financial performance in this year's annual report.[20]
This had been identified as a deficiency in recent reports and had been noted
as an area for improvement.
2.36
The report indicated that the department received approval from the
Minister for Finance to incur an operating deficit of $6.98 million.[21]
However, by implementing a number of actions to achieve internal cost savings,
and with receipt of the $5.5 million MYEFO supplementation, DPS reduced to the
operating deficit to $4.88 million for 2013-14.[22]
2.37
The committee notes that Ms Jenny Teece co-signed the Statement by
the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer on 9 September 2014
attached to the department's financial statements, as the 'Chief Financial
Officer'.[23]
This statement certifies that the financial statements give a true and fair
view of the matters required by the Finance Minister's Orders made under the
FMA Act.
2.38
The ANAO Better Practice Guide, Preparation of Financial Statements
by Public Sector Entities states that the
...CFO has the primary responsibility for preparing the
financial statements in accordance with relevant legislative and policy
requirements. The CFO will also generally have operational responsibility for
the main financial systems that underpin the financial statements.[24]
2.39
It is noted that in the annual report's summary of the department's
senior executive team, Ms Teece is listed as the Acting Chief Operating
Officer,[25]
having joined the department in March 2013, as Assistant Secretary, Strategy
and Performance Branch. Evidence to the committee in its inquiry into DPS at the
public hearing on 17 November 2014 was that the department had not had
a chief financial officer for the previous 12 months and that a contractor, Callida,
had been performing that role.[26]
It would have been preferable for the report to have provided an explanation regarding
Ms Teece performing the CFO role.
2.40
The Parliamentary Librarian provided a good account of financial
performance of the Library for the year. An under spend of approximately $1.434
million was reported: operating expenditure was $14.583 million (down from the operating
budget of $15.923 million), and the capital expenditure was $0.672 million
(down from the capital budget of $0.766 million). This was attributed to a downward
revision in the formula for staffing on-costs across the department, which
resulted in an over allocation per staff member of approximately 6 per cent;
changes in the accounting treatment of capitalised salaries for collection related
expenses; and a reduction in staffing numbers.[27]
Information on construction
projects
2.41
The report provides a summary of the delivery of building upgrades and
projects undertaken during 2013-14. These included the upgrade to the main
production kitchen, construction and fit out of the new Parliamentary Budget
Office accommodation,[28]
replacement of the flag pole lighting system and installation of assistive
listening devices throughout Parliament House.[29]
2.42
This summary provides a total value for the capital building projects
delivered during the year, which amounted to $9.459 million, but did not
include a breakdown of this figure for each project, nor whether they were
completed on budget.[30]
2.43
The discussion on financial performance includes the departmental and
administered capital budget (totalling $30.2 million) and the departmental and
administered expenditure for 2013-14 (totalling $20.9 million).[31]
Department of Finance
2.44
The Department of Finance's annual report for 2013-14 closely complies
with the Requirements for Annual Reports providing a good account of the
department's performance and operation for the year under review. Its clear
design and layout ensures information is readily accessible. The report
contains not only the mandatory information under the Requirements for Annual
Reports, but also the suggested inclusions, where applicable.
2.45
The report provides a good overview of the portfolio department and
agencies.[32]
It sets out the changes to the department following the federal election on
7 September 2013 and under the AAO of 18 September 2013, where
responsibility for the function 'reducing the burden of government regulation'
was transferred from the Department of Finance and Deregulation to the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. As a result, the portfolio and
department were re-named accordingly.[33]
Secretaries foreword and review
2.46
This is the first annual report under the new Secretary, Ms Jane Halton
PSM, who commenced her appointment in July 2014. The former Secretary, Mr David Tune AO
PSM, contributed to the year in review section of the report, while Ms Halton sets
out the priorities for the year ahead in the foreword.
2.47
Notable achievements during the 2013-14 financial year highlighted by
Mr Tune included delivery of the 2014-15 budget, establishment of the
Medibank Sale Taskforce, establishment of the new Commonwealth Contracting
Suite, introduction of personal videoconferencing units for ministers and
senior APS officials, and preparation for the introduction of the Public
Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Also noted was the
impact of the federal election on the department which generated high workloads
in certain areas.[34]
2.48
Ms Halton highlighted key priorities over the coming year. These
included assisting in implementing the Government's Smaller Government Agenda,
the sale of Medibank Private Limited, and the implementation of the reform
strategy for the Air Warfare Destroyer Programme.[35]
Performance reporting
2.49
Performance information is clearly presented in tabular format for both
deliverables and KPIs. In cross-checking this information for compatibility against
the KPIs as set out in the 2013-14 PBS and the Portfolio Additional Estimates
Statements, it was found that the annual report largely addresses the level of
achievement against those targets. However, it was noted that one KPI relating
to Program 1.2 – Public Sector Superannuation, as listed in the 2013-14 PBS,[36]
was not reported on in this year's annual report with no explanation for its
omission.[37]
The Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2013-14 for the Finance Portfolio
confirms that no changes were made to the KPIs for Program 1.2 since the
2013-14 PBS.[38]
2.50
The committee was pleased to note that the department continues to use a
combination of quantitative and qualitative KPIs to measure achievement of
outcomes, including the use of a target for some. This provides a measureable
assessment of performance and allows for useful comparison across years. A
brief explanatory comment for a number of results, particularly for those KPIs
which are partially or not achieved, is a helpful inclusion.
2.51
This section would have been enhanced with the inclusion of comparative
information of performance from the previous year or years. However, it is
noted that trend information across recent years is presented in a number of
other tables throughout the report, for example, relating to staffing
statistics, financial performance and environmental performance.[39]
2.52
It was reported that all deliverables across the three departmental
outcomes were met. With regard to KPIs, the department fully met 18 of the 22
KPIs for Outcome 1; fully met nine and partially achieved three of the 16 KPIs
for Outcome 2; and met four of the six KPIs for Outcome 3.[40]
2.53
One area of note in this year's report was the performance information
relating to the increased workload of the department as a result of the federal
election. Under Outcome 1, this included working with the Treasury on the Pre-Election
Economic and Fiscal Outlook which was released on 13 August 2013.
It was also reported that over the caretaker period, Finance costed 76 election
commitments which were publicly released on a dedicated website.[41]
2.54
Departmental Outcome 3, dealing with ministerial and parliamentary
entitlements, was also significantly impacted by the federal election. The
report noted the following demands:
-
a high workload through the provision of equipment and the
streamlining of accommodation arrangements for the Prime Minister's and Leader
of the Opposition's travelling teams;
-
COMCAR met high demand for car transport across routine and
election-related activity;
-
heavy demands for advice on entitlements from client service
areas, including help desks receiving more than 25,000 requests; and
-
management of transitional arrangements for outgoing and incoming
parliamentarians, including final entitlements processed and paid to 555
departing staff and over 900 employment contracts processed.[42]
2.55
Despite the high workload, it was noted that of the two KPIs which were
not met this year, those dealing with travelling allowance claims and client
enquiries, were very close to the target measure.[43]
It was also reported that the establishment of the election planning taskforce
in 2012 '...ensured a coordinated and efficient effort by the department through
regular meetings, consultations and reviews.'[44]
Financial performance
2.56
The ANAO issued an unqualified audit report for the department's
financial statements. The audit report indicated at note 36 to the statements, dealing
with Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated
Revenue Fund, 33 payments totalling $69,000 were made in 2013-14 under the Parliamentary
Entitlements Act 1990 in breach of section 83 of the Constitution.[45]
The ANAO, in its report on Audits of the Financial Statements of Australian
Government Entities for the Period Ended 30 June 2014, noted that all of
these payments were recovered and confirmed that this matter is not a
qualification or modification to the audit opinion on the financial statements.[46]
In relation to the matter, the ANAO further advised:
Finance has undertaken to continue to monitor its level of
compliance with section 83 of the Constitution across all legislation for which
it is administratively responsible. Amendments to legislation will be
progressed with the aim of reducing the risk of future section 83 breaches,
where appropriate.[47]
2.57
The department reported an operating deficit of $97.1 million for the
2013-14 financial year, compared with the 2012-13 result of an operating
surplus of $62.6 million.[48]
Mr Tune in his review commented that the $97.1 million operating deficit was 'largely
as a result of a number of major insurance claims'.[49]
However, the discussion on financial management reported that the 2013-14
result was $48.5 million more than the revised deficit estimates of $48.6
million as published in the 2014-15 PBS and was mainly attributed to the
write-down of land and buildings.[50]
This was further discussed:
Operating expenses were $27.0 million higher than in 2012–13.
This was primarily due to an increase in Comcover insurance claims and new
expenditure in the Coordinated Procurement Contracting Special Account in
relation to Internet Based Network Connection Services
Write-down and impairment of assets increased by $117.8
million due to four key factors: $42.1 million revaluation decrement for land
and buildings; $58.6 million impairment on receivables; $8.4 million write-down
on investment properties; and $9.6 million write-off and impairment on software
occurring in 2013–14.[51]
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
2.58
The PM&C annual report adheres to the Requirements for Annual
Reports and includes a number of suggested items as well as the mandatory
requirements.
Portfolio overview
2.59
A mandatory requirement for portfolio departments under the Requirements
for Annual Reports is the inclusion of an outline of the structure of the
portfolio. The report includes an overview of the portfolio structure as at 30
June 2014 and states that there is one department of state, six statutory
agencies and 12 Commonwealth companies and authorities (CAC).[52]
2.60
The list of CAC bodies incorrectly includes 'Northern Territory Land
Councils' as one of the 12 CAC bodies, which it is not. There are four Northern
Territory land councils, which are included in the list: the Anindilyakwa Land
Council, the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council and the Tiwi Land
Council.
2.61
The portfolio overview does not include statutory office holders within
the portfolio. To ensure a comprehensive overview is presented, it would be
useful to include the statutory office holders in the overview of the portfolio.
These are understood to be the Executive Director of Township Leasing, the
Aboriginal Land Commissioner, the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, and the
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.[53]
2.62
The Remuneration Tribunal is an independent statutory office, which also
sits within the PM&C Portfolio and is also omitted from the overview.
2.63
The reader should be confident that the department's annual report
provides an accurate and complete overview of the portfolio. It is regrettable
that this was deficient in the 2013-14 annual report, though the committee
acknowledges the significant changes to the portfolio during the year under
review.
Secretary's overview
2.64
The then Secretary, Dr Ian Watt AO, provided a comprehensive overview of
the year in review. Of particular note were the challenges posed to the
department from mid-2013 which saw a succession of three Prime Ministers, a
federal election, a change of government and subsequent changes to departmental
functions following amendments to the AAO. He advised that Department of the PM&C
responded well to this challenge and noted that:
There has been a significant effort across the Department to
support these changes and adapt to a workforce that grew from 798 staff in one
location at 30 June 2013 to 2,467 in 110 locations at 30 June 2014, while still
continuing to focus on our core role of providing expert support and policy
advice directly to Government.[54]
2.65
Other areas highlighted included assisting the government in the
implementation of the its key election commitments, Australia's presidency of
the G20 Forum and preparations for the G20 Leaders summit in Brisbane on
15 November 2014, assistance in the transition to the new
Governor-General in March 2014, coordination of the program and visit of Their
Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and coordination of the
Government's first Repeal Day on 26 March 2014.[55]
Performance information
2.66
The secretary notes in his overview that most KPIs and deliverables were
met. The exceptions were one KPI relating to Higher Education Vocational
Education and Training, and five deliverables across three programmes,
including Indigenous Capability and Development, the Supplementary Recurrent
Assistance VET Programme, and the Indigenous Employment Programme.[56]
2.67
A full list of the departmental deliverables was not included in the
annual report. The report presented results against the KPIs as listed in the
PBS and the PAES for Outcome 1 and in a similar approach to last year, are
essentially qualitative. The KPIs for Outcome 2 – Indigenous, are mostly
quantitative. The PM&C Portfolio PAES 2013-14 noted that:
The deliverables for Indigenous programmes transferred to
PM&C remain unchanged from what was published in the 2013-14 Portfolio
Budget Statements of the relevant departments that transferred programmes to
PM&C.
These will be reviewed and updated in PM&C's 2014-15
Portfolio Budget Statements due to be released in May 2014.[57]
2.68
The performance results for the KPIs for Outcome 1 are presented in a
similar format to the previous report, that is, within tables with a tick
indicating the KPI was met. The results for Outcome 2 are also presented this
way, but usefully include detail of specific achievements against each KPI.
Financial performance
2.69
The department recorded an operating surplus of $12.3 million on its
core operations for the 2013-14 financial year. This result is clarified by an
explanation of core ordinary departmental operations which exclude G20,
unfunded depreciation and amortisation expenses, assets received free of charge
and revaluations of assets and employee liabilities. It was further advised
that the Statement of Comprehensive Income discloses a technical operating
deficit of $6.6 million.[58]
2.70
The audit report of the financial statements noted that payments totalling
$116,702 under section 64(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern
Territory) Act 1976 (ALR Act) were made in 2013-14 in breach of section 83
of the Constitution.[59]
2.71
The ANAO noted in its report on Audits of the Financial Statements of
Australian Government Entities for the Period Ended 30 June 2014 that:
The breaches are of a technical nature and were not a result
of a system or control break-down. PM&C advised it was pursuing a
legislative amendment to the ALR Act to address the issue.[60]
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
2.72
The annual report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
(IGIS) for 2013-14 provides a concise overview of operations and performance
for the year. The report has been prepared in accordance with section 35 of the
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 and complies
with the Requirements for Annual Reports.
Inspector-General's review
2.73
The Inspector-General's review highlights the office's challenges in
adapting to changes to the operations and powers of intelligence agencies while
maintaining an oversight role that is effective, credible and transparent.[61]
2.74
The review outlined the completed inquiries during the year which
examined:
-
the attendance of legal representatives at Australian Security
Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) interviews;
-
the actions of ASIO, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the
then Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) in respect of an Egyptian
irregular maritime arrival who was placed in immigration detention and was the
subject of an Interpol red notice
-
the use of weapons and self-defence techniques in Australian Secret
Intelligence Service staff.[62]
2.75
The Inspector-General also outlined the IGIS's responsibilities under
the new Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which commenced on 15
January 2014, and the office's role in establishing the new framework.[63]
Performance information
2.76
The performance report sets out the program deliverables and KPIs as set
out in the PBS for 2013-14. The office's performance indicators do not include
targets. The discussion which follows provides an informative description of
the agency's activities and performance.[64]
The inclusion of an explicit statement or table summarising whether each/all of
the deliverables and KPIs were fully met would be a useful inclusion.
2.77
The performance discussion provided accounts of the three inquiries which
were completed during 2013-14, which are noted above, and included a summary of
the findings, recommendations and agencies' progress on their implementation. A
detailed summary of complaints and contacts to the Office of the IGIS was also
included, along with a review of the office's timeliness on these processes. The
section on performance also included a review of the IGIS's role in Freedom of
Information and archives matters, the number and trends concerning inquiries
and complaints, effecting change in agencies as a result of IGIS recommendations,
and an overview of inspections carried out by the office. A summary of
inquiries and complaints is presented in tabular form at Annex 1 of the report.
2.78
One area of particular note was the increase in the number of complaints received,[65]
which rose from 375 in 2012-13 to 504 in 2013-14. Of the 504 complaints
received, 487 were about visa-related security assessments (361 complaints
about visa-related security assessments were received in 2012-13). It was noted
that 'visa-related security assessment complaints have consistently represented
96-98 per cent of all complaints made to IGIS since 2011-12.'[66]
The IGIS noted that there were no readily discernible factors driving the
increase in the 2013-14 for this category of complaint and that she does 'not
regard the year-on-year increase as being statistically relevant or a cause for
undue concern.'[67]
2.79
In response to the recent volume of visa-related security assessment
complaints the IGIS advised:
...during the 2013–14 reporting period my office made a number
of refinements to our inspection activities in regards to visa security
assessment complaints, with a view to improving our understanding of the visa
application process at both Immigration and ASIO and focusing on areas of
potential concern based on any trends which emerge from our complaints-handling
function.[68]
Financial performance
2.80
The report includes a concise summary of financial performance for
2013-14. The agency ended the year with a surplus of $226,333; this compares to
a $37,423 surplus for 2012-13.[69]
2.81
The financial statements received an unqualified audit report from the ANAO.
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
2.82
The annual report of the Office of the Official Secretary of the
Governor-General is prepared in accordance with subsection 19(1) of the Governor-General
Act 1974 and closely adheres to the Requirements for Annual Reports.
It includes the mandatory inclusions, as well as suggested items, where
applicable.
Official Secretary's review
2.83
The Official Secretary's review provides a brief overview of 2013-14,
highlighting the office's role in overseeing the transition of
Governors-General which saw His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter
Cosgrove AK MC (Retd) sworn in as Australia's 26th Governor-General
on 28 March 2014. The report noted that the new Governor-General undertook a busy
program of outreach and engagement which the office facilitated. The office
also provided support to the outgoing Governor-General, the Honourable Dame
Quentin Bryce AD CVO, which included a full program of outreach, farewell calls
and events.[70]
2.84
Other activities noted by the Official Secretary included:
-
significant property projects at Vice-Regal buildings to repair,
restore and refurbish degraded and damaged elements of the properties;
-
hosting Family Picnic Day in September 2013 - the largest ever
community event at Government House; and
-
managing the changes to the Constitution of the Order of
Australia to reflect the reintroduction of Knights and Dames within the Order.[71]
2.85
The Official Secretary also noted that the work of the office was
carried out with reduced overall staffing and tight fiscal restraints.[72]
However, it was noted that for the forthcoming year:
Continued budgetary pressures will necessitate ongoing close
monitoring of expenditure and a small reduction in overall staff numbers,
however core vice-regal business will be unaffected.[73]
Design
2.86
The report is attractively designed; however the layout features very wide
top and left margins, limiting the amount of text per page. Even though this
year's report is more restrained in its use of photographs and case studies
than last year's, it still runs to nearly the same length as the previous
report which may be attributable to this design feature. The committee had
previously noted a trend in 'highly designed' annual reports which may be
overly lengthy because of overgenerous layout and design.[74]
Notwithstanding this design aspect of the report, its concise content which
focusses on the essential inclusions required of an annual report is commended.
Performance information
2.87
The report on performance provides a clear and informative review of the
office's achievements in 2013-14. The report includes the office's objectives
and KPIs, as set out in the 2013-14 PBS. The KPIs are a combination of
qualitative and quantitative measures, with the quantitative KPIs including a
target as a benchmark for performance. Performance results are set out in
tabular format with a supporting discussion. Only one KPI was not met or
exceeded, and this was by only a margin of one per cent. Trend information for
the six quantitative KPIs which have a target measure is also presented in a
table with comparative results over the previous four years.[75]
Financial performance
2.88
The report provides a summary of the organisation's financial
performance for the year in review, indicating a modest operating surplus after
adjustments for depreciation and amortisation.[76]
This compared with a break-even result for the previous year.[77]
The financial statements received an unqualified audit report from the ANAO.
Commonwealth Ombudsman
2.89
The annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman for 2013-14 is a clear
and informative document. It is prepared in accordance with section 19(1) of
the Ombudsman Act 1976 and adheres to the Requirements for Annual
Reports. It was noted that both social inclusion outcomes and spatial reporting
were included in the report's compliance index to the Requirements for Annual
Reports; however both reporting requirements were removed from the latest
version and were not a requirement in the 2013-14 annual report.
Commonwealth Ombudsman's foreword
2.90
The Commonwealth Ombudsman (CO) in his foreword to the annual report highlighted
the office's enhanced integrity role under the Public Interest Disclosure
Act 2013 which established the Public Interest Disclosure Scheme on
15 January 2014, as noted earlier. These include:
-
providing assistance and education to agencies and officials
subject to the scheme;
-
determining standards for agencies to abide by in dealing with
public interest disclosures; and, where appropriate
-
investigating disclosures.[78]
2.91
The report later includes a comprehensive overview of the scheme and
summary of its operation since commencement.
2.92
The CO also provided examples of two recent major investigations,
including the release of the report of an investigation into service delivery
complaints about the Department of Human Services Centrelink program, and an
ongoing inquiry into agency complaint management.[79]
2.93
Other areas noted in the foreword were anticipated functional changes to
the CO's responsibilities announced in the 2014 Budget, complaint trends, and
the office's increased engagement with the Office of the IGIS as well as an
updated memorandum of understanding between the two agencies.[80]
Performance information
2.94
The report clearly sets out the office's objectives, program
deliverables and KPIs as listed in the 2013-14 PBS. These have been updated from
those in the 2012-13 report. The revised KPIs provide a more definite measure
of whether a particular component of the program is being met against a benchmark.
The two sets of KPIs are set out comparatively below.
|
2012-13 KPIs
|
2013-14 KPIs
|
|
improved
administration following the Ombudsman’s reports and investigations
improved
complaint handling within agencies
improved
compliance with legal requirements by enforcement agencies in the use of
covert powers
timely
inspection reports that identify areas for improvement[81]
|
Qualitative
handling
of investigated complaints meets internal and external service standards
inspections
conducted and reports produced in accordance with legislative and other
requirements
Ombudsman
recommendations monitored for implementation within agencies
Quantitative
investigations,
reports and submissions to Parliament and Government completed and timely
inspections
and reports completed within statutory timeframes.
|
2.95
The 2013-14 KPIs refer to meeting 'internal and external service
standards', inspections and reports are produced 'in accordance with
legislative and other requirements', and completing work within 'statutory
timeframes'. These KPIs provide for a requirement to meet particular standards
rather than those from the previous year which only required 'improved'
performance or compliance. Each deliverable and KPI is addressed separately within
the report with a summary of the office's work that has contributed to each.
Financial performance
2.96
The office reported an operating surplus of $38,000 (excluding
depreciation and amortisation and the impact of the asset revaluation) which
compared to an operating surplus of $457,000 the year before. It was noted that
the operating surplus for this year was achieved in a period of tightening
resources where the office's appropriation was reduced by $283,000.[82]
General Comments
2.97
In examination of the 2013-14 annual reports the committee found some
variation among agencies in the approach to reporting on program performance,
both in the content available in the PBS and what is subsequently reported on
in the annual report. While most agencies adhere to the Department of Finance
guidance on the preparation of the PBS with regard to the required program
performance information, some take a modified approach.
2.98
To ensure that transparent and consistent information is available to
Parliament and the public about departmental and agency programs, the committee
encourages agencies to closely follow the guidance issued to the Department of Finance
for the preparation of PBS. Additionally, when reporting on actual program
performance in their annual report, agencies are reminded to include all
information specified in the PM&C Requirements.
2.99
The committee notes that changes aimed at strengthening the performance
framework are planned under stage 2 of the Department of Finance's Performance
Management Reform Agenda, following the passage of the Public Governance,
Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). This will focus on
improving the quality of planning, performance information and evaluation
within government to improve government accountability to ministers, the
Parliament and the public.[83]
Included under the new framework are two new elements of performance
information required under the PGPA Act: a requirement for Commonwealth
entities to prepare a corporate plan and annual performance statements. The
Department of Finance has indicated that the new performance framework aims to
deliver:
-
improved guidance on KPIs and other measurement approaches;
-
clarity of options for improving data over time;
-
improved alignment with other performance frameworks; and
-
options to leverage internal data to support strategic decision
making.[84]
2.100
The committee looks forward to the implementation of the proposed
enhancements to the performance framework to assist not only agencies in developing
quality and meaningful performance information, but also the Parliament in scrutinising
that information.
Senator Cory Bernardi
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page