Chapter 2 - Annual reports of departments
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
2.1
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry's (DAFF) 2004-05 annual report was prepared in accordance with section
63 of the Public Service Act 1999 and
tabled on 7 November 2005.
The committee notes the Senate's receipt of this report on 27 October 2005.
2.2
The report is presented in accordance with the
checklist of requirements stipulated in the Department of Prime Minister and
Cabinet's Requirements for Annual Reports
for Departments Executive Agencies and FMA Act Bodies, June 2005. The DAFF
2004-05 annual report contains the following information:
-
the Secretary's yearly review highlighting the
achievements of the Department and future outlook;
-
a departmental overview outlining DAFF's operations
and organisational structure;
-
report on performance as measured against output
objectives;
-
an overview of the Department's management and
accountability arrangements, including corporate governance practices, internal
and external scrutiny, purchasing and tendering; and
-
appendices detailing financial statements, FOI
requests, discretionary grants, occupational health and safety procedures and
advertising and market research.
2.3
The committee notes that all mandatory requirements
for the report have been met, although the level of detail provided against
each mandatory reporting item varied considerably. Overall, this is a well
constructed and comprehensive report.
Departmental overview
2.4
The committee notes that the following were
amongst the many significant issues for DAFF during the reporting period:
-
development and delivery of drought assistance.
Initiatives included the relaxation of exceptional circumstances criteria. The
Department administered over $226 million of direct drought assistance during
the year;
-
developing appropriate policies and programmes
in response to expected changes in the agriculture and food sector over the
next 15 years. DAFF published a Stocktake
paper analysing issues confronting the food and agriculture sector, which
provided a resource for the high level Reference Group chaired by NFF President
Peter Cornish, established by the Government
to examine these issues;
-
natural resource management and sustainability,
and in particular, issues relating to water quality and allocation were a
significant part of DAFF’s work program during the year. The National Water
Initiative resumed;
-
illegal fishing. While the commitment to the
presence of an armed patrol significantly reduced illegal fishing in southern
waters such as around Heard and MacDonald Islands, illegal fishing incursions
from the north continued to increase;
-
trade liberalisation. Free trade agreements (FTAs)
with the USA and Thailand were implemented, and DAFF participated in
negotiations in relation to further possible agreements with China, Malaysia,
the UAE, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Japan;
-
a highlight was the successful legal challenge
in the WTO to European Union export sugar subsidies;
-
quarantine – for AQIS, a major focus was on
preventing the entry of bird flu into the country;
-
import risk assessments – the sensitivity of
this issue saw Biosecurity Australia become a prescribed agency under the FMA
Act on 1 December 2004. This move is intended to increase the independence
of such assessments. Two risk assessments of particular interest were in
relation to the proposed importation of apples from New Zealand, and bananas
from the Philippines.
2.5
The committee notes the appointment of a new
Secretary to the Department, Ms Joanna
Hewitt, who joined DAFF in October 2004. In
her Secretary’s review, Ms Hewitt
emphasised the importance of the Reference Group chaired by NFF President, Mr
Peter Cornish,
in helping to set the direction for DAFF’s future policies and programs.[5]
2.6
The Secretary also noted that prolonged drought
continued to affect the profitability of many primary producers, and that the
development and delivery of drought assistance policies was one of the major
themes of DAFF’s work during the year. Others included international trade,
border protection, industry competitiveness and natural resource management.[6]
Report on performance
2.7
DAFF has reviewed its performance based on
objectives established in the 2004-05 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS). The
Department’s success in achieving its outputs and outcomes is measured through:
-
overall effectiveness indicators in achieving
outcomes;
-
departmental indicators in delivering each
output;
-
administered items in delivering specific
Australian Government programmes and their subsequent contribution to outputs.[7]
2.8
This is an extensive and detailed section of the
report, occupying 130 pages of text.[8]
The committee considers that DAFF has been thorough in evaluating its
performance, to the extent that this is possible. The committee notes that
there is much useful and interesting information in the section. Some of the
items that the committee particularly noted include:
-
In the corresponding report for 2003-04, (examined
in Report no. 1 of 2005) the committee noted that $55 million had been provided
under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. In 2004-05, this
amount increased to $397.4 million, provided through the Action plan and
the National Heritage Trust. The major investment was in developing and
implementing integrated catchment management or National Resource Management
plans by community-based regional bodies. 52 of the 56 regional National
Resource Management plans have been accredited;[9]
-
In relation to salinity mitigation in the
Murray-Darling basin, DAFF reported that at Morgan, salinity continued to be
below the 800EC target 95% of the time, compared to 60% before construction of
salt interception works;[10]
-
During 2004-05, over 13 300 farm families
received exceptional circumstances relief payments totalling $107.6 million
under the Farm Household Support Act. The ANAO Drought Assistance Audit found
that the drought assistance measures
‘have generally been responsive and effective’;[11] and
-
over $42 million was provided in 2004-05 under
the Sugar Industry Reform Program.[12]
2.9
Information concerning performance evaluation in
relation to quarantine under Output 6 was particularly well presented in the
report. The authors of this section utilised more charts and graphs in this
section than in other parts of the report, improving overall readability.[13]
2.10
The committee notes that the effectiveness of
quarantine interventions exceeded targets in most areas, but fell below targets
in relation to international mail.
2.11
The committee noted with interest the
information provided in the report about monitoring performance against the
client service charter. DAFF and a number of agencies conduct regular client
surveys to evaluate performance from the client’s perspective, producing mixed
results. 70 per cent of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with the level
of service provided by ABARE. The BRS achieved better results, achieving a 92
per cent satisfaction rating.[14]
Management and accountability
2.12
As required by the Department of Prime Minister
and Cabinet's annual reporting guidelines, the report provides information on
corporate governance, internal and external scrutiny, human resource
management, purchasing, assets management, consultancies, advertising and
market research activities, discretionary grants, freedom of information,
occupational health and safety, Commonwealth Disability Strategy and
ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance.
2.13
Five major Australian National Audit Office
performance audits in relation to DAFF’s activities were tabled in 2004-05. Of
particular interest was Audit Report No. 50: Drought Assistance, which
found that on the whole, the delivery of drought assistance was accurate and
timely. However, the audit did consider that improvements could be made by
reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of current processes. DAFF’s report
notes that it has made significant progress in addressing issues raised in the
report.[15]
Conclusion
2.14
The committee considers DAFF's 2004-05 annual
report to be well presented and in compliance with the reporting requirements
of a Commonwealth department.
Department of Transport and Regional Services
2.15
The Department of Transport and Regional Services
Annual Report for 2004-05 was tabled in the Senate on 7 November 2005. The committee notes the
Senate's receipt of this report on 28
October 2005.
2.16
The report was prepared under the guidelines
referred to in section 63 of the Public
Service Act 1999 and in accordance with the requirements in subsection
63(1) and other relevant legislation.
2.17
The report is structured in accordance with the
requirements contained in Requirements
for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and FMA Act Bodies, June
2005 (the Requirements). It
provides a review of the department's performance over 2004-05 and measures
performance against the department's output objectives. Also included are the
following:
-
an outline of the department's structure and
operations;
-
accountability mechanisms through internal and
external review;
-
financial statements; and
-
appendices relating to: the Commonwealth Access
and Equity Strategy; the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economic (BTRE)
research; procurement practices and outcomes (including consultancies, market
research and advertising); the Commonwealth Disability Strategy; ecologically sustainable
development; freedom of information requirements; discretionary grants
programmes; additional human resources statistics; and a comparison of old and
new performance frameworks.
2.18
The committee notes that all mandatory
requirements for the report have been met.
Departmental overview
2.19
In 2004–05 the department reported an operating
surplus of $45.2 million. This largely reflected a reduction in the provision
for asbestos-related disease claims that saw revenue increase by $31.6 million
and the liability reduce accordingly.[16]
Other issues that affected the department's performance and position included
continued growth in revenues and expenses associated with the transport
security output and a government decision to reclassify resources for services
to the Indian Ocean Territories.
2.20
As a consequence of the latter, some expenses,
revenues and assets were reclassified as either administered or departmental
and this had significant impacts on the respective balance sheets.
Additionally, $85.2 million was returned to the Official Public Account.
2.21
The committee notes that the Albury-Wodonga
Development Corporation moved to the Finance and Administration portfolio from 16 December 2004, reducing net
assets of the department by $99.8 million.[17]
2.22
During 2004–05 the department continued to
implement AusLink. Key legislation was passed to bring six separate
infrastructure programmes into a single legal framework to enable a strategic
approach to be taken to managing the programmes.[18] Bilateral agreements on future AusLink
projects were signed with most states and territories. Negotiations with the
remainder are continuing.
2.23
Transport security was again a major focus for
the department and it implemented a new regulatory regime for aviation and
maritime security as well as an intergovernmental agreement on surface
transport security. Additionally the department took on responsibility to
regulate security for Australia's 56 offshore oil and gas platforms, and
provided support for a government review into security and policing at
Australian airports by UK security expert Sir John Wheeler.
2.24
The Office of the Inspector of Transport
Security was set up to provide a new investigative capability for major
transport security incidents within the department and new arrangements for enhanced
aviation security came into force.
2.25
Regional programmes were expanded during the
year. Extra funding was provided to Sustainable Regions to support two new
regions and 438 new projects were implemented as part of Regional Partnerships.
The department developed community partnerships to help manage both programmes.
2.26
The Department Secretary also sponsored the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) East Kimberley Indigenous Trial which
focused on community activities and increased use of local resources to meet
priorities. Eleven shared responsibility agreements were created to help
address youth and women's issues, improve environmental health and provide
community infrastructure.
2.27
For the second time in as many years, the
department reorganised its structure. The annual report sets out the changes
and the reasons for them,[19] as
required by the Requirements (paragraph 10(2)).
Report on performance
2.28
The department's annual report details DOTAR's
activities and performance in Chapters 3 and 4. Because of the department's
restructure during the period it revised its outcomes and outputs framework to
reflect the organisational changes. Therefore the 2004–05 annual report
identifies departmental achievements against the new framework and targets
published in the 2005-06 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) rather than against
those in the 2004–05 PBS.[20]
2.29
The annual report includes a rating scale
indicating a programme's extent of achievement against performance indicators
in the PBS. The scale is Fully Achieved, Mostly Achieved, Partly Achieved and
Not Achieved.
2.30
Under Outcome 1 the department only partly
achieved its targets for providing metal detection equipment and training to
140 regional airports due to delays in contract signing;[21] and likewise for the resolution of the
future of the former Australian National Railways Commission plan room.[22] It is unclear from the annual report
why the future of the plan room could not be resolved.
2.31
A number of programmes received a Not Achieved
rating in the annual report. Allocated grant monies for the Echuca-Moama Bridge
and Wodonga rail bypass were not distributed during the period because of ongoing
discussions between the Victorian government and various organisations.[23] Additionally, negotiations were
continuing as regards the sale of land at Essendon and Coolangatta airports
under the compensation for acquisition and sale of airport lands programme.[24]
2.32
Under Outcome 2 the programme to refurbish
Kingston Pier on Norfolk Island was only partly achieved
during the year.
Management and accountability
2.33
In accordance with the requirements contained in
the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's Requirements for Annual Reports the report provides mandatory
information on matters such as external scrutiny, human resources, purchasing,
consultancies, market research and advertising, tendering and contracts, asset
management, discretionary grants, freedom of information and occupational
health and safety.
2.34
In 2004-05 there was a 66.3 per cent drop in
complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman about the way the department handled
client complaints. Vehicle importation and compliance was the main issue
investigated by the Ombudsman. There were no findings of defective
administration.[25]
2.35
The department was involved in a range of
matters before Australian courts and tribunals during the year. Matters mainly
related to motor vehicle imports, airport planning approvals, personal injury
claims for asbestos-related disease and coronial inquests.
2.36
A major ruling was made in the matter of Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport
Corporation Ltd and others.[26] The
Federal Court held that the minister's approval of the Brisbane Airport's
master plan and the major development plan for an outlet centre were valid and
effective. This decision has confirmed that an airport lessee may engage in
non-aeronautical on-airport development within the constraints of the Airports Act 1996 and the terms of the
lease.
2.37
The committee notes that in his independent
audit report on the department's financial statements the delegate of the
Auditor-General included a statement that the department contravened Section 83
of the Constitution[27] when it spent
receipts without a valid appropriation. Note 28A to the Financial Statements
informs about the circumstances of what seems to be a technical breach.[28] It does appear that the responsibility
lay in the Department of Finance whose delegate did not have the authority to
sign the Section 31 agreement, and not in the Department of Transport and
Regional Services. The Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation
committee considered this issue in more detail as it related to the Department
of Finance and Administration.[29]
Conclusion
2.38
The committee considers that the Department of
Transport and Regional Services has presented an annual report that is
apparently satisfactory. It is a well set-out report that provides good
cross-referencing and other devices such as tables and graphs to assist the
reader's understanding of the department's endeavours, as well as to explain
how the resources entrusted to the department have been used.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page