Chapter 1
Annual Reports of Statutory Authorities
1.1
The following reports of statutory authorities for the financial year
2007-08 were referred to the committee for examination and report:
Attorney-General's Portfolio
-
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
-
Administrative Review Council
-
Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights)
-
Australian Crime Commission[1]
-
Australian Government Solicitor
-
Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research
Council
-
Australian Law Reform Commission
-
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
-
Commonwealth Ombudsman[2]
[Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio]
-
Copyright Agency Limited
-
Family Court of Australia
-
Federal Court of Australia
-
Federal Magistrates Court
-
High Court of Australia
-
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (now Australian
Human Rights Commission)
-
Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
-
National Capital Authority
-
National Native Title Tribunal
-
Classification Board and Classification Review Board
-
Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio
1.2
In each of these reports, the committee's custom has been to select a
small number of reports for closer examination. On this occasion, the
committee decided to select the annual reports of the following agencies:
-
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
-
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
-
Migration Agents Registration Authority
-
National Native Title Tribunal
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
1.3
The annual report of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
(ASIO) was tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2008. As indicated in the
letter of transmittal, this report is provided to the Attorney-General in an
unclassified form for tabling, while a classified annual report is also
provided to the Attorney-General in accordance with section 94 of the Australian
Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
1.4
ASIO's role as Australia's security service limits the information which
is included in the unclassified annual report. Subsection 94(4) of the Act
allows the Minister to make deletions from the classified report 'in order to avoid
prejudice to security, the defence of the Commonwealth, the conduct of the
Commonwealth's international affairs or the privacy of individuals.'
1.5
The level of scrutiny available with regard to ASIO's operations was the
subject of questioning during the recent budget estimates 2009-10 hearings.
The Director-General of Security described the role of the unclassified report
within the broader accountability regime for the organisation.
Senator LUDLAM—How do the Australian public know if
they are getting value for money? What are your distinct outputs? How are we
measuring the success of the agency, particularly benchmarked against big
increases in funding?
Mr Irvine—I frankly think that is a difficult question
to answer to the full satisfaction of the Australian public in the sense that,
necessarily, ASIO’s activities and its
successes cannot be made public. So what the system has in place is, first of
all, a form of reporting which is public. The annual report of ASIO is put
forward in an unclassified form for the public. That necessarily tends to speak
in generalities. For the government itself, there is a much more complete
report of a highly classified nature. The second area of oversight, if you
like, is through the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security,
which looks into the management and administration of ASIO. There are other
measures of oversight that ensure or add substance to the notion of assurance
to the Australian public that ASIO is indeed working effectively and with
appropriate levels of probity.
Senator LUDLAM—I am a little more familiar with the
role of the joint parliamentary committee, but can you describe for us in broad
terms the classified reporting obligations that you have, presumably to the
Attorney-General? What sort of form do they take?
Mr Irvine—In essence it takes the form of a typical
Public Service annual report but sometimes it goes into quite considerable
detail about cases and statistics that perhaps cannot be made public and so on.[3]
1.6
It was noted in the annual report that ASIO is the only agency within
the Australian intelligence community that produces a publicly available annual
report.[4]
1.7
The committee found the report for 2007-08 adhered to the reporting
requirements under section 94 of the ASIO Act[5]
and followed the requirements for annual reporting. Taking into account the limitations
placed on the agency with regards to public reporting, the annual report
provided a good account of activities, initiatives and financial position for
the year under review.
1.8
The one-page summary of key statistics for 2007-08 in the introductory
section of the report was a useful inclusion. It provided quick access to key
items of continuing interest, including staffing numbers and budget, and a
snapshot of the ASIO's work throughout the year in review, often with a
comparative figure for the previous year.[6]
1.9
The report stated that terrorism continues to pose a significant
security threat to Australia and counter-terrorism continues to be a major priority
for the organisation. 'Terrorism.....currently commands the majority of ASIO's
operational attention and resources.'[7]
However, ASIO is also building capability to meet the growing demands in the
areas of countering espionage and foreign intelligence.[8]
It was reported that ASIO has boosted the level of resources devoted to
counter-espionage work and plans to build further capability through to
2010-11.[9]
1.10
ASIO reported on the progress of the Next Generation Border Security (NGBS)
initiative. ASIO has worked with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship
on this initiative which is aimed at improving service delivery related to
border security through better identification and prevention of entry to
Australia of people of security concern.[10]
The report advised that the implementation of the NGBS is well advanced and the
committee looks forward to further updates.
1.11
The report notes an increase in ASIO's involvement in criminal and legal
litigation during 2007-08. This includes the provision of information to
support terrorism prosecutions, civil litigation and review of administrative
decisions.[11]
In response to this growing trend, a Legal Division was created in July 2007.[12]
1.12
Staffing numbers have continued to increase during the reporting
period. The ASIO workforce grew from 1356 to 1492 during 2007-08 but was still
below the target growth figure of 170 for the year. However, ASIO reported
that the organisation was still confident of achieving its target of 1860 by
2010-11.[13]
1.13
The growth in staffing has put pressure on ASIO's office accommodation
and a new central office building was approved in the 2007-08 Federal Budget.
The new building is scheduled for completion by 2012.[14]
1.14
The total price of ASIO's outputs increased by $69.345m in 2007-08. It
was reported that the agency received a significant equity injection of $159m
during the year which allowed ASIO to continue its major capital investment
activities.[15]
1.15
The committee noted that the report referred to several recent reviews
and inquiries that ASIO cooperated with during 2007-08. These included the
Homeland and Boarder Security Review (the Smith Review) and the Clarke inquiry
into the handling by Australian agencies of investigations following attempted
bombings in the United Kingdom in June 2007. The report also provided a
summary of the recommendations which related directly to ASIO which came out of
the review of interoperability between the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and
its national security partners conducted by the Honourable Sir Laurence Street
AC KCMG QC. It noted that implementation of these recommendations, working
with the AFP and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, was well
advanced.[16]
1.16
The committee considers the ASIO annual report to be 'apparently
satisfactory'.
Australian Human Rights Commission (formerly the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission)
1.17
The committee commends the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on
a report that is well presented and which provides a good account of the
commission's performance and activities for the year in review. The report
also clearly articulates the Commission's role and objectives. It includes a
review of the 'HREOC21' summit, a planning exercise 'to initiate a AHRC-wide
strategic planning process by creating a refreshed vision for AHRC's future and
a concrete plan of action that would make the vision happen'.[17]
The outcomes from the summit included a new vision and mission, a new strategic
plan and a full-time position to implement these.[18]
1.18
The committee notes that a compliance index was not included in the
report. While the inclusion of a compliance index is not mandatory, the committee
recommends agencies include one as a useful cross reference to the annual
reporting requirements.
1.19
The report began with a summary of milestones for the year under review.[19]
Amongst the range of items highlighted was the appointment of Ms Elizabeth
Broderick as Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Commissioner responsible for
Age Discrimination; the reaccreditation of three national Indigenous Legal
Advocacy courses of which AHRC is the copyright holder; and the implementation
of the Community Partnerships for Human Rights Program, a set of initiatives to
assist the achievement of social inclusion for Australia's Muslim communities
and to help decrease marginalisation and discrimination on the basis of race or
religion.[20]
1.20
Complaints handling forms a significant part of the work of AHRC. The
Commission has responsibility for the investigation and conciliation of
complaints lodged under federal anti-discrimination and human rights law, and
provides information to the public about the law and the complaint process.[21]
The annual report provided a detailed account of the Commission's performance
in this area and included extensive use of tables and graphs. Additionally,
the committee found the use of case studies to illuminate the work of the
Complaints Handling Section a useful inclusion in this chapter.
1.21
During 2007-08 the volume of both inquiries and complaints increased.
Inquiries increased by 13 per cent from the previous year and 32 per cent in
comparison to the average number of enquiries received over the previous four
years. The number of complaints for the period increased by 17 per cent from
the previous reporting year and 28 per cent in comparison with the average
number of complaints over the past four years.[22]
Despite these increases, the Commission reported that it had exceeded its
targets for the performance standards for timeliness, the conciliation rate and
customer satisfaction.[23]
1.22
The report made references to budget pressures impacting on the
organisation. The committee notes that the outgoing President, the Honourable
John von Doussa QC, expressed concern that budget restraints were 'seriously
limiting research and policy initiatives that could otherwise be undertaken to
enhance the understanding and enjoyment of human rights in Australia and our
near Pacific neighbours.'[24]
Similarly, the Race Discrimination Commissioner stated that:
It is with continuing disappointment I note ... that HREOC must
continue its works in an environment of ever-diminishing financial resources
and staff reductions at the very time that modest budget supplementation could
offer such significant benefits to the entire nation.[25]
1.23
The committee considers the annual report of AHRC to be 'apparently
satisfactory'.
Migration Agents Registration Authority
1.24
The Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) was established to
ensure relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 are administered
and to regulate the migration advice profession.[26]
From 1 July 2009 MARA has been attached to the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship as a discrete office.
1.25
As stated in the letter of transmittal, MARA prepares its annual report
in accordance with Guidelines for the Presentation of Government Documents to
the Parliament and to the extent that it is relevant to its operation, it also
complies with the Requirement for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive
Agencies and FMA Act Bodies 2008.
1.26
MARA's annual report sets out a clear account of organisational
performance for the year under review. Appendix Four presents the performance
targets for MARA as provided for in the Deed of Agreement entered into between
the Commonwealth and the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA). These targets
are referenced to relevant sections in the report.[27]
1.27
The committee notes that MARA generally performed well against
performance targets. The section of the report dealing with performance in
relation to complaints provided detailed data on various aspects of the
complaint handling processes, including volume, finalising times, sources and
issues. MARA met or exceeded performance targets in the area of complaint
finishing times.[28]
It was noted in the Executive Officer's report that the complaint handling
processes have become more streamlined and flexible, the complaint backlog had
been eradicated and processing times are at a record low.[29]
1.28
The report included a summary of progress on the implementation of
recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report on MARA's complaint
handling process which was released in June 2007.[30]
MARA accepted all of the Ombudsman's recommendations and reported good progress
on their implementation, but acknowledged that further improvements are
required.[31]
1.29
Appendix Nine of the report contained a special purpose financial report
on MARA for the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2008 which received a qualified
independent audit report. The qualification related to a carried forward
surplus of $771 240 that had been identified by MIA to be surplus funds from
the performance of the statutory functions of MARA that existed at 30 June 2003.
The auditor advised that this balance was not audited and did not have an
opinion on the accuracy or otherwise of this amount.[32]
1.30
The committee considers the annual report of MARA to be 'apparently
satisfactory'.
National Native Title Tribunal
1.31
The annual report of the National Native Title Tribunal outlines the
Tribunal's activities during the year, detailing changes in legislation and
external factors affecting the Tribunal and forecasts within the native title
system, particularly the resolution of native title applications.
1.32
The Tribunal lists its key results, which include an operating surplus
of $2.95 million[33]
for 2007-08 and an increase of $3.08 million in net equity due to accumulated
surplus[34].
The Tribunal attributes its operating surplus as being largely due to
reductions in suppliers' expenditure and depreciation.[35]
1.33
Staffing numbers at 30 June 2008 show no change from the previous
reporting period, however that level was not sustained throughout that period
as 75 employees left the Tribunal, resulting in a 30 per cent turnover, an 8
per cent increase in staff turnover from the last reporting period.[36]
The Tribunal did not give a reason for the increase in turnover however the committee
notes the Tribunal has continued its employee survey to assess staff
satisfaction and determine people-management priorities[37].
1.34
The Tribunal achieved an overall client satisfaction rate of 94 per
cent, which equates to an average of 7.15 out of a maximum of 10. The target
client satisfaction rate is 80 per cent. The committee notes the client
satisfaction rate has risen steadily since 2003[38]
and attributes commissioned research into the satisfaction of its clients and
stakeholders as the basis of the improved ratings.
1.35
The Tribunal provided a useful summary of significant decisions of the
Full Court of the Federal Court that were handed down. These decisions are
noted as significant because they illustrate interpretation and application of
the principles laid down by the High Court.
1.36
The report provides comprehensive performance information, including
presentation of performance indicators and useful maps of Indigenous land use
agreements. The inclusion of trend data over several years is a practical and
helpful comparison of performance indicators and results.
1.37
The Tribunal noted that the number of Indigenous Land Use Agreements was
57, far exceeding the predicted total figure of 45, with the most significant
activity occurring in Queensland.
1.38
The committee considers the annual report of the Tribunal to be
'apparently satisfactory'.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page