CHAPTER 2


CHAPTER 2

ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY BODIES

2.1        The annual reports of the following statutory bodies for the financial year 2011-12 were referred to the committee for examination and report during the period 1 May to 31 October 2012:

Attorney-General's Portfolio

  • Administrative Appeals Tribunal
  • Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity[1]
  • Australian Crime Commission[2]
  • Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
  • Australian Federal Police[3]
  • Australian Government Solicitor
  • Australian Human Rights Commission
  • Australian Institute of Criminology
  • Australian Law Reform Commission
  • Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
  • Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
  • Classification Board and Classification Review Board
  • Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
  • CrimTrac Agency
  • Family Law Council
  • Family Court of Australia
  • Federal Court of Australia
  • Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
  • Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
  • Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
  • Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman[4]
  • Office of Parliamentary Counsel

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

  • Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal
  • Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (Sub-program 1.1.3)

Consideration of annual reports

2.2        The committee has determined to consider, but not report on, the annual reports of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Australian Crime Commission, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement have specific responsibility for overseeing these agencies.

2.3        Similarly, the Committee has determined to consider, but not report on, the annual reports of the Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee have specific responsibility for overseeing these agencies.

2.4        On this occasion, the committee has decided to examine in more detail the reports of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the CrimTrac Agency, and the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

2.5        The annual report of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tabled in the Senate on 31 October 2012.

2.6        The AAT has one outcome and is a one program agency. Its outcome is:

Access to a fair, just, economical, informal and quick review mechanism for applicants through reviews of government administrative decisions, including dispute resolution processes and independent formal hearings.[5]

2.7        Its primary deliverable is completed reviews of decisions, and there are two parts to achieving it:

  • applications finalised without a hearing, and
  • applications finalised with a hearing.[6]

2.8        The AAT reported an operating surplus of $1.505 million in 2011-12 before unfunded depreciation costs, which is attributed to once-off savings in property costs, reduced usage of part-time members during the year and a number of vacant positions.[7]

2.9        The AAT's performance information in relation to program deliverables and performance outcomes corresponds closely to those provided in the Portfolio Budget Statements. Performance results are measured against projected standards, with both qualitative and quantitative information presented in a tabular format. For example, for 'Program 1.1.1 – Applications finalised without a hearing', the AAT's actual performance of 91 per cent exceeded the projected standard of 85 per cent of matters having first conference within 13 weeks. However, in relation to quantity, the actual result of 4,011 fell short of the projected standard of 5,218. Likewise the price per completed application was higher at $4,190 than was the projected standard of $3,190.[8]

2.10      The inclusion of the Tribunal's service charter in the annual report provides accountability and transparency in reporting. The number and types of complaints made about the Tribunal are usefully broken down into relevant issues, as well as in relation to whether the Tribunal responded (in writing) within the target of 20 working days. [9] Such information is a valuable measurement of performance.

2.11      The committee is pleased to note the report closely follows the list of Requirements for Annual Reports and considers the report of the AAT to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

CrimTrac Agency

2.12      The annual report of the CrimTrac Agency (CrimTrac) was presented out of session on 12 October 2012.

2.13      The committee is pleased with the report's conformity with the list of Requirements for Annual Reports, and with the inclusion of some suggested information, such as policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate ethical standards,[10] workforce planning, staff turnover and retention,[11] names of the senior executive and their responsibilities,[12] and senior management committees and their roles.[13]

2.14      The agency's reported a surplus of $4.747 million for 2011-12 compared to a surplus of $6.480 million for the previous period.[14]

2.15      Information in the agency's performance outcomes correlates to that contained in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements. The inclusion of snapshots to illustrate the variety of CrimTrac's work is very helpful in illustrating the complex environment in which CrimTrac operates.

2.16      The committee notes, however, that actual performance information measured against KPIs does not seem to contain targets. The inclusion of targets is desirable not only for benchmarking of actual results but for enhancing accountability and transparency in reporting. For example, in relation to the National Police Checking Service (NPCS), although information on the quality and quantity of performance are available ('such as 95 per cent of routine checks are processed within ten working days' and 'all enquiries for accreditation are processed according to guidelines in a timely manner') there is no information on targets to judge whether performances have met their objectives.[15]

2.17      The report has generally complied with the list of Requirements for Annual Reports. The committee considers that the annual report of CrimTrac is 'apparently satisfactory'.

Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)

2.18      The Migration Review Tribunal-Refugee Review Tribunal's (MRT-RRT) annual report was presented out of session on 12 October 2012. The committee notes its presentation out of session was two days (falling on a weekend) before the October estimates hearings, which meant the report was not made readily accessible for examination prior to the hearings.

2.19      The Principal Member's overview for 2011-12 provided some contextual background for the environment in which the MRT-RRT operates. For example, the Principal Member revealed that the MRT-RRTs' decision-making for 2011-12 increased by 18 per cent from the previous 2010-11 period and combined application lodgements rose by 30 per cent. The active caseload has significantly increased by
55 per cent as at 30 June 2012 and it was highlighted that the increase in caseload and outputs of the MRT-RRT has been part of a consistent trend in recent years.
For 2011-12 the MRT-RRT made 10,815 decisions and active caseload reached 18,364 cases.[16] This significant increase in applications, combined with the unavailability of some experienced members, meant that the proportion of RRT cases decided within 90 days fell noticeably short of the previous 2010-11 figure of
71 per cent, to 32 per cent for 2011-12.[17]

2.20      The committee is pleased to note that the MRT-RRT's performance in 2011-12 exceeded its program deliverable measures and key performance indicators set in its 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements. In 2011-12, the MRT-RRT exceeded its deliverable measure of 8,300 cases, with 10,815 cases being decided. In relation to the key performance indicator target of less than 5 per cent of tribunal decisions set aside by judicial review, the MRT-RRT achieved 0.2 per cent of MRT and 0.8 per cent of RRT decisions made in 2011-12 that have been set aside by judicial review.[18]

2.21      The report's inclusion of statistical and trend information presented in graphs, charts and tables means information is easy to locate and readily accessible. The close adherence to the compliance index, as well as the inclusion of suggested information, such as significant changes in the nature of principal functions or services,[19] names of the senior executive and their responsibilities,[20] corporate and operational planning and associated performance reporting and review,[21] work health and safety performance[22] and workforce planning.[23]

2.22      Finally, the integration of a range of real life case studies is a very effective way of presenting complex information. By fleshing out the complexities within each case study, the MRT-RRT provides valuable insight into the work undertaken by the tribunals.

2.23      The MRT-RRT annual report is well presented, with easy to locate information and provides a 'clear read' with the Portfolio Budget Statements. The committee considers the report to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page