Chapter 3
Annual reports of agencies
3.1
The committee considered all of the following reports to be 'apparently
satisfactory'.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio
Commonwealth authorities
Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation
3.2
Once again, the committee commends the AWBC for certifying its
compliance with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines in the prescribed
manner, as outlined in paragraphs 1.32 and 1.33. The committee notes the
proviso that the AWBC's fraud risk assessment and fraud management plan were
not completed within the timeframe specified in the guidelines.
3.3
The AWBC reported that it had achieved an operating surplus of $526,000
for 2008-09, compared to the budgeted break-even figures in the PBS. The
Chairman indicated that while this is a pleasing result, it is not the Board's
intention to accumulate profits and it will be investigating ways to utilise
some of its existing financial reserves for the benefit of the wine sector.[1]
3.4
The AWBC reported that it underwent significant restructuring in 2008-09
including the closure of its European office, changes to its North American and
UK/Ireland/Europe operations, and the establishment of a marketing presence in
China in partnership with Austrade. The AWBC observed that the most significant
issues for the industry are the uncertainty of the system for taxing wine and
the imbalance between supply and demand. There is currently an excess supply
after a rebound in the national harvests for 2008 and 2009, following the
severely drought-effected harvest of 2007.[2]
Prescribed agencies
Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority
3.5
The committee is pleased to note that, following the committee's
comments in its previous report, the APVMA has made a number of improvements to
its Annual Report for 2008-09. In particular, the APVMA has more closely
aligned its compliance index with the checklist of requirements, as set out in
the Requirements for Annual Reports. In addition, the compliance index for the
APVMA's enabling legislation now follows the reporting requirements set out in
Section 61 of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act
1992, which apply from the 2007-08 financial year onwards.[3]
3.6
Overall, the committee found the APVMA's compliance index to be
detailed, useful and easy to follow. The committee notes, however, that the
compliance index contained some incorrect page numbers and that a number of
mandatory items were not listed, including the following:
- where outcome and output structures differ from PBS format,
details of variation and reasons for change;
- performance of purchaser/provider arrangements;
- where performance targets differ from the PBS/PAES, details of
both former and new targets, and reasons for the change;
- narrative discussion and analysis of performance;
- performance against service charter customer service standards,
complaints data, and response to complaints;
- developments since the end of the financial year; and
- grant programs.[4]
3.7
The committee acknowledges that a number of these mandatory requirements
may not be applicable to the APVMA. In such cases, the committee considers it
would be useful to record a nil entry or 'not applicable' where the APVMA has
nothing to report against an item.
3.8
The committee commends the APVMA for its improved reporting on
consultancy contracts and competitive tendering. As well as a mandatory
proforma listing each individual consultancy to the value of $10,000 or more,
summary statements for new and ongoing consultancies have been provided in accordance
with the guidelines set out in the Requirements for Annual Reports.
3.9
The committee notes that the APVMA has included a summary resource table
by outcomes. While the inclusion of this table is an improvement on its previous
annual report, the information provided in the final column is not in
accordance with the suggested format for the table contained in the Requirements
for Annual Reports.[5]
In addition, agencies are also required to include an agency resource statement
table, a new requirement from 2008-09 onwards.[6]
3.10
The committee is pleased to note that the APVMA has included a date on
its transmittal letter, as specified in the Requirements for Annual Reports.
3.11
The APVMA reported that throughout 2008-09 it continued the review of
its cost recovery arrangements which began in 2007-08. The APVMA has considered
all of the comments received and is now preparing a final cost recovery impact
statement for the Minister's agreement. The final statement will set out the
fee structure for the next five years, or until the next review, if the need
arises before 2013. It is proposed that changes to the APVMA's cost recovery
arrangements will be phased in from 2009-10 and completed by July 2011.[7]
3.12
The APVMA's income for 2008-09 was $24.83 million, an increase of
$2.37 million from 2007-08. This was primarily due to higher levy revenue.
Total operating expenses for 2008-09 were $25.86 million, an increase of $1.01
million from the previous year.[8]
3.13
Following comments made in its previous report, the committee is pleased
to observe that the APVMA has included a number of corrections to its 2007-08
annual report, as follows:
- a date for the letter of transmittal;
- a summary resource table by outcomes;
- separate summary statements for new and ongoing consultancies;
and
- a revised compliance index.[9]
Wheat Exports Australia
3.14
The committee notes that this is the first report of Wheat Exports
Australia (WEA). WEA replaced the Export Wheat Commission (EWC) from 1 July
2008 following a change to Australia's wheat export arrangements. WEA is a prescribed
agency under the FMA Act. The objective of WEA is to regulate the export of
bulk wheat from Australia through the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme and
inform government, growers, exporters and industry of outcomes.[10]
3.15
Overall the committee found WEA's report to be informative and well
presented. While the report contained a useful compliance index which aided the
committee in its assessment of the report, a number of items, that are
mandatory if applicable, were not listed. The committee considers it would be
useful to record a nil entry where WEA has nothing to report against these
items.
3.16
The committee commends WEA for fully complying with the requirements
relating to consultancy contracts and competitive tendering. As well as the
summary statements for new and ongoing consultancies, a listing of individual
consultancies was provided in accordance with the mandatory proforma set out in
the Requirements for Annual Reports.[11]
3.17
The committee is also pleased to note that WEA has provided 'Agency
resource statement' and 'Total resources for outcomes' tables in accordance
with the formats specified in the Requirements for Annual Reports.[12]
3.18
In addition, WEA's reporting on OH&S, and under section 311A of the Commonwealth
Electoral Act 1918 in relation to advertising and market research was of a
high standard.
3.19
The committee notes that WEA has included a brief general statement
about the Commonwealth Disability Strategy, however, there was no assessment of
its performance in implementing the strategy (as outlined in paragraph 1.28).
Instead, readers are referred to a web link for the Australian Public Service
Commission's (APSC's) State of the Service Report, with WEA indicating that it
had reported on its performance to the APSC through this report. WEA is
reminded that this information must be included in its annual report.[13]
3.20
WEA reported that 'the period covered by this 2008-09 Annual Report has
been one of momentous change for Australia's wheat industry'. When the Wheat
Export Marketing Act 2008 commenced on 1 July 2008, 'it removed the Single
Desk export wheat marketing system and introduced competition to the exporting
of Australian bulk wheat'.[14]
3.21
WEA indicated that the Act and the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme
will be reviewed by the Productivity Commission for reporting to the Australian
Government by 30 June 2010. At the same time, DAFF, in conjunction with the
Department of Finance and Deregulation, will be conducting an internal review
of funding arrangements for WEA. The committee notes that the Government
provided an appropriation of $1.107 million through an Advance to the Finance
Minister on 5 November 2008 for WEA operations during 2008-09.[15]
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
portfolio
Commonwealth authorities
Airservices Australia
3.22
As mentioned in the committee's previous reports the compliance index in
this report was not comprehensive.[16]
The committee again found it difficult to ascertain whether Airservices Australia had adequately reported against section 15 of the CAC. The committee also had
difficulty finding information about subsidiaries and the location of major
activities and facilities. The committee encourages Airservices Australia to include a more comprehensive compliance index in upcoming reports.
3.23
The committee commends Airservices Australia on its thorough reporting
under the EPBC, FOI and OH&S Acts.
3.24
Airservices Australia reported that in 2008-09 it initiated a much more
strategic focus on safety, both in its operations and workplace. The Board and
Executive are in the final stages of approving a ten year safety plan, to
ensure that operational and workplace safety are key considerations in the way
Airservices Australia delivers projects, acquires new technology and
infrastructure, refurbishes existing systems and buildings, and enhances the
safety of its staff by utilising good workplace design practices.[17]
3.25
Airservices Australia negotiated three collective agreements with its employees
and unions in the past year. The CEO explained that 'it was important that,
while these agreements needed to be fair to our people, they also provided the
basis for our program of ongoing productivity improvement and reform'. As
Airservices Australia earns revenue from the aviation industry, the current and
emerging cost pressures on the industry were key considerations in the
negotiations. According to the Chairman, 'this process was not without
difficulties, particularly in the air traffic agreement; however, the Board was
pleased that agreements which reflected opportunities for further efficiency
improvements were eventually reached'.[18]
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
3.26
The committee considers that CASA has fulfilled its reporting
requirements to a high standard. The report is clear, well structured and easy
to read. It provides a thorough review of CASA's functions, activities and
outcomes for 2008-09, including comprehensive reporting under the FOI, OH&S
and Commonwealth Electoral Acts.
3.27
The committee is pleased to note improvements in CASA's transmittal
letter and its reporting on the Commonwealth Disability Strategy.
3.28
CASA reported that a significant milestone in 2008-09 was the finalisation
of the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1988 (CASR) Part 99, which
establishes a framework for the development of drug and alcohol management
plans covering persons involved in safety sensitive aviation activities. It
also establishes a regime for random drug and alcohol tests conducted by or on
behalf of CASA. The new rules were launched at the Regional Aviation
Association of Australia convention on 19 September 2008. Random drug and
alcohol testing commenced in April 2009. Symbion, an independent testing
provider working on behalf of CASA, is expected to perform approximately 6,000
random alcohol and other drug tests during the first 12 months of
operation.[19]
3.29
The committee notes that during the reporting period, Mr Bruce Byron
completed his appointment as Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive
Officer (CEO). His term as CEO began in December 2003 and concluded on 1 March
2009, when he was replaced by Mr John McCormick.[20]
3.30
The committee notes that following amendments to the Civil Aviation
Act 1988, a new Board will be introduced from 1 July 2009 to improve CASA's
governance. The functions of the new Board are to decide the objectives,
strategies and policies to be followed so that CASA performs its functions in a
proper, efficient and effective manner, in compliance with ministerial
directions. The Board will operate at a strategic level with a particular focus
on governance, while the Director of Aviation Safety will continue to be
responsible for day-to-day regulatory and operational decision making.[21]
Statutory corporations
National Transport Commission
3.31
In its previous reports the committee noted that the NTC is not a
Commonwealth authority for the purposes of the CAC Act. The NTC's enabling
legislation states that certain sections of the CAC Act apply to it, including
section 9 relating to annual reporting requirements. Under Schedule 1 of the
CAC Act, an agency's annual report must include a report of operations prepared
in accordance with the CAC Orders.[22]
The committee is concerned that the NTC has once again failed to address the
majority of requirements under the CAC Orders.
3.32
The committee is disappointed that despite comments in its previous
reports the NTC has again failed to include a compliance index or an
alphabetical index.[23]
The committee calls the NTC's attention to subsection 6(1) of the CAC Orders
which clearly states that reports 'must be constructed having regard to the
interests of users'.
3.33
Following comments made in its previous report, the committee is pleased
to note that the NTC's Annual Report 2009 presented to Parliament was printed
in international B5 size, as specified in the Printing standards for
documents presented to Parliament.[24]
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page