Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
3.1
The committee took evidence from the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet (PM&C) and portfolio agencies on Monday, 25 May and Tuesday, 26 May
2009, and the Department of Climate Change on Friday, 29 May 2009.
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
Governor-General's trip to Africa
3.2
A large proportion of the questions addressed to the Office of the
Official Secretary to the Governor-General (OOSGG) concerned the
Governor-General's recent trip to Africa. The committee heard that during this
trip, which occurred in March and April 2009, Her Excellency visited nine
African countries.
3.3
The Official Secretary, Mr Stephen Brady, responded to questions about
the primary aim of the visit and stated:
The visit was regarded as a watershed in Australia's
relations with Africa. It was about the Governor-General conveying in person
that strength and engagement with Africa and the commitment to a broader and
deeper engagement with the African continent as a whole, with the nine
countries that were identified for the Governor-General to travel to. This was
a visit that was without precedent. Over 30 years or more no Australian
Governor-General has travelled to Africa.[1]
3.4
He went on to say:
...the government is campaigning for election to the UNSC [United
Nations Security Council], and those elections are to be held at the end of
2012. The issues are related but they are not the same thing. The Governor-General
was in Africa to underline to senior levels of government that Australia wants
to contribute to Africa's development where and when we have something unique
to offer. She was there to highlight Australia's expanding business and
people-to-people links. She was there because Australian mining companies, in
particular, have a strong involvement on the continent. The visit pointed to
the positive contributions those companies make to jobs, investments, skills,
community development and environmental sustainability and responsibility. She
met, whilst on that 18-day trip, with any number of Australian NGOs operating
in Africa. The visit was not about promoting Australia’s UNSC candidacy as the
star purpose.[2]
3.5
The Official Secretary stated that any discussion of the UNSC bid was in
the context of Australia's commitment to multilateralism:
The Governor-General referred to the bid in her meetings with
the heads of state and heads of government that she met with. She put that into
the context of Australia's engagement multilaterally, and towards the end of
conversations it was raised twice with her by her interlocutors but, to my
knowledge, on other occasions she referred to it as conversations wound up.[3]
3.6
A lengthy discussion took place concerning whether the trip to Africa
represented a politicisation of the role of the Governor-General. The Official
Secretary responded to this stating:
It is entirely appropriate for the Governor-General—any
Governor-General—to promote Australia's interests overseas. I would have
assumed that as a statement of fact.[4]
3.7
The Official Secretary went on to reject claims that the
Governor-General had been involved in Australian foreign policy[5]
and informed the committee that the trip was similar to that taken by the
former Governor-General to China, stating:
I would regard and characterise Mr Bryce’s travel to Africa
in identical terms. Can I also say that here you have Prime Minister Harper
announcing a state visit of the Governor-General of Canada to Africa. That
preceded the visit of Governor-General Bryce. Here, the Governor-General of
Canada will represent Canada on a five-country state visit to Africa. At the
request of the Canadian Prime Minister, the Governor-General will lead a trip
to these countries. I do not see how this trip was different.[6]
Briefings delivered to the
Governor-General
3.8
The committee questioned the OOSGG on the subject of briefings given by
heads of federal departments to the Governor-General. Mr Brady answered that it
was usual for newly-appointed Governors-General to receive briefings in their
first 100 days of office.[7]
The committee heard that more recently, the Governor-General had proactively
arranged a briefing for state governors and a territory administrator, and that
invitations had gone directly through to the heads of the relevant departments,
bypassing the ministers. OOSGG agreed to take on notice how they would handle
this in the future, if the situation arose.
Appointments of staff
3.9
The OOSGG was asked about several senior staff vacancies that were not
advertised, including the position of Deputy Official Secretary. The Official
Secretary informed the committee that:
Under section 13 of the Governor-General Act, the official
secretary is given the right to employ staff. It is usual, for a variety of positions
at Government House, that we do regularly advertise them. For the deputy
official secretary, I decided that a secondment was the best way of
proceeding—from the public sector. A secondment is straightforward because, if
an arrangement does not work out, the person is able to return to their home
department.[8]
3.10
Mr Brady also pointed to the six month probation condition under which
the Deputy Official Secretary had been employed, which was in excess of the
usual probation period.[9]
3.11
Other issues covered by the committee with the OOSGG included the
Governor-General's comments on an Australian republic, and staffing levels at
Government House.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Increase in overall staff numbers
3.12
The committee heard that the 2009–10 budget provides for an increase in
PM&C's staffing numbers by 71 positions in terms of the average staffing
level. Of these 71 positions, 17 are for the COAG Reform Council, for which
funding is shared between the Commonwealth and the states. Sixteen of the new
staff will work in the newly created Office of the Information Commissioner.
There is provision for nine extra staff for the Community Cabinet function and
17 new positions in the National Security and International Policy Group,
relating to the National Security Advisory Group. The remaining positions are
spread across other areas of the Department.[10]
Economic stimulus measures
3.13
The committee questioned the newly-appointed Commonwealth
Coordinator-General, Mr Mike Mrdak, on the progress of building measures under
the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Mr Mrdak responded to the question, stating:
The implementation of the nation-building program is going
very well. At this stage all of the COAG time frames are being met and work is
starting on a range of projects. We are effectively now transitioning out of
the project approval and planning processes into the start of construction.[11]
3.14
Mr Mrdak went on to list the status of various construction programs
under the purview of the Coordinator-General.[12]
He also reported favourably on state relations, stating that he has weekly
meetings with his state counter-parts, and that a new reporting system would
commence within the next month. Mr Mrdak stated that the reporting system would
deliver a 'report every month on expenditure and project process against every
project, so for every school and every housing project we get a monthly report'.[13]
3.15
Mr Mrdak was asked whether the Commonwealth had oversight of the
selection of state and territory Coordinators-General. He advised the committee
that states and territories had responsibility for these appointments, stating:
Certainly a number of jurisdictions advised us of their
intention to appoint particular people. That was a decision that they made, and
they simply advised us of their intentions as to whom they were going to
appoint.[14]
3.16
The committee questioned Mr Mrdak on how the Commonwealth deals with the
differing issues associated with different jurisdictions. Noting that, to date,
all COAG milestones had been met, Mr Mrdak outlined his approach:
It is fair to say that what I do is work with each of those
jurisdictions. Quite early on we met as a group to understand each of the
different approaches being adopted. What has been happening through the
exchange of information from coordinators-general is jurisdictions are picking
up best practice, essentially. Where one jurisdiction has put in place a better
method of procurement or, for instance, a jurisdiction has had template designs
for school buildings, they have been shared with other jurisdictions. So we
have actually done that as a means of keeping the program moving.
Coming back to your point, Senator: yes, there are different
approaches being adopted, but what we have tried to do through the coordination
arrangements is to make sure we are picking those up. Similarly, a number of
jurisdictions have made changes to their planning laws and regulations to
facilitate the faster development of these projects. That has been, in a couple
of cases copied by other jurisdictions.[15]
3.17
A committee member asked the Coordinator-General to detail what
oversight is in place to ensure that states or territories do not cost-shift at
the expense of the Commonwealth. In answer to this question, Mr Mrdak stated:
The most important one is that, as part of the COAG agreement
in February, the states and territories agreed to maintain their effort in
relation to existing forward estimates spending in education, housing and
infrastructure. That is locked into the national partnership agreement. That is
monitored by the Treasury. The heads of Treasury process monitors that. States
and territories have been required to provide details of their forward
estimates spending in each of those portfolios where the Commonwealth is
putting additional investment in. That is then monitored on a quarterly basis
by the treasurers to ensure that there is no diminution of state effort and
spend. That is the main process that is taking place at the macro level. At the
micro level, in relation to individual project costs, we look closely at the
project proposals that have been put forward for states to make sure that we do
have a look at issues like project management fees and the like that are
proposed in there. I am not aware at this stage that any state is using any
Commonwealth program funds to fund the coordination process.[16]
National Security Advisory Group
3.18
One of the budget measures included in the PM&C portfolio for
2009–10 was the establishment of the National Security Advisory Group, at a
cost of $17.9 million over 5 years.[17]
The committee asked what additional capabilities this group would add to
PM&C. Mr Angus Campbell, Deputy National Security Adviser, informed the
committee that the adjustments to PM&C's National Security and
International Policy Group occurring as the result of the establishment of the
National Security Advisory Group were driven by the recommendations of the
Smith Review into Homeland and Border Security.[18]
He emphasised that one of the key outcomes was an improvement in intelligence
coordination:
Intelligence coordination prior to the announcement of the
Smith review was being undertaken first through a foreign intelligence
coordination group looking only at our foreign intelligence but not then across
the breadth of other forms of intelligence, such as law enforcement, border,
immigration or security intelligence. This national intelligence coordination
approach is new and is undertaken in the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet. It was not being done before.[19]
Response to swine flu outbreak
3.19
The committee questioned the department on their response to the
potential for a swine flu pandemic in Australia. The committee was informed
that the Pandemic Emergency Taskforce had been 'stood up' on 28 April 2009,
within two days of swine flu cases being reported from Mexico, but that it had
been stood down by the time of the hearing (26 May 2009). Dr Rob Floyd, Acting
First Assistant Secretary, Homeland and Border Security Division explained
further, stating:
The role of the Pandemic Emergency Taskforce is to coordinate
whole-of-government responses and activities around a pandemic, or pandemic
like disease situation, such as the one we have. The primary work of
coordination of the health response comes through the Department of Health and
Ageing. So the decisions which are about appropriate health measures are all
done through the Department of Health and Ageing in consultation with the
states and territories through the Australian Health Protection Committee. When
there are broader whole-of-government issues that need to be considered, then
the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is called together.[20]
3.20
In response to committee concerns that the taskforce had been stood down
at a time when swine flu cases appeared to be increasing, Dr Floyd explained
that the department continued to monitor the situation, and would reconvene the
taskforce when necessary. He went on to provide further detail, stating:
Yesterday we held discussions about whether we needed to
stand up the pandemic emergency task force again or not, so this is very
actively and constantly monitored. It does depend on the circumstances within
Australia, and the need for the pandemic emergency task force is in the area of
whole of government coordination, not in terms of the health response, which is
being managed through the Department of Health and Ageing with jurisdictional
colleagues...We have a number of staff who are continuing to work full-time on
the pandemic issue; although we do not have it formally constituted as a
pandemic emergency team, they are still fulfilling that kind of role. So there
is a proportionate staffing response that we use, and we continue to engage and
monitor whole of government issues as required.[21]
3.21
The committee heard that the taskforce is comprised of members of
PM&C and provides support to the National Pandemic Emergency Committee
(NPEC). Dr Floyd provided further detail in regard to the NPEC, stating:
We are involved in standing up the National Pandemic
Emergency Committee as issues come up where we need to coordinate with
jurisdictions and with the Australian government. That committee stood up late
last week for the purpose of considering the schools' issues and it will stand
again, as it needs to. Those senior officials are from first ministers'
departments, emergency service departments and health departments in all
jurisdictions and the Commonwealth. The NPEC is a mechanism that we are
responsible for bringing together as is required and we have done that over the
history of this event.[22]
Economic stimulus plan websites
3.22
Extensive discussion between the committee and the department took place
concerning the websites associated with the Nation Building and Jobs Plan,
including www.economicstimulusplan.gov.au. More detail can be found in the
general issues section in Chapter 1.
Use of Commonwealth Cars
3.23
In the context of questioning surrounding several Comcar contracts from
the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, the committee asked for clarification of
the policy on usage of Commonwealth cars by the Prime Minister's staff. Senator
Faulkner, Special Minister of State, informed the committee that the policy
stands as follows:
...all employees of the Prime Minister may use a Comcar to
travel to and from RAAF Base Fairbairn when embarking or returning from travel
with or on behalf of the Prime Minister. That is clause 36. Clause 37 says that
with prior notification to the Comcar client liaison manager, the Prime
Minister’s employees may also travel in a Comcar when the car would otherwise
be travelling without passengers, in a range of circumstances: (a) if the
Comcar as travelling out of zone, for example, from Canberra to Merimbula to
meet the Prime Minister and employees need to travel on the same route to meet
the Prime Minister, and (b) if a Comcar is travelling as part of the Prime
Minister’s advance party and the employees need to travel along the same route.
Finally, in using Comcar for these purposes the Comcar booking will be based
solely on the Prime Minister’s requirements. Employees must make their own way
to and from any pick-up drop-off point that Comcar advise which will be on the
direct intended route. The Comcar schedule cannot be altered to incur waiting
time on behalf of an employee.[23]
Other issues
3.24
Other matters discussed with the department included: changes to the private
health insurance rebate; the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission; Community
Cabinets; Medibank Private; health services for staff; the National Broadband
Network; executive training for national security groups; the Defence White
Paper; the Ashmore Reef incident; establishment of a crisis coordination
centre; and matters relating to the Prime Minister's VIP jet.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
3.25
The committee heard that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) is
to be absorbed into the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) and that
this process is currently scheduled to commence in January 2010. Also sitting
beneath the OIC will be a Freedom of Information Commissioner. The committee
asked the Privacy Commissioner, Ms Karen Curtis, whether the potential existed
for a conflict of interest between the Privacy and Freedom of Information
Commissioners. Ms Curtis responded, stating:
I would expect that the Information Commissioner, as the CEO,
will manage any internal conflicts that do arise. But, essentially, there will
be two major pieces of legislation being administered, the FOI Act and the
Privacy Act, and there are specific provisions that will necessarily mean that
normal activities will still occur in those two broad streams. The idea of
bringing information, the FOI function, and privacy together is that there will
be greater scope for information management across the Commonwealth.[24]
3.26
Ms Curtis went on to assure the committee that though the two agencies
may share office space, their information management would be strictly in
accord with the Privacy Act, ensuring that there would be no misuse of
information across the two offices.
3.27
Other issues discussed with the committee included the performance of
government departments in handling privacy issues, the office's response rate
in dealing with complaints, and the ongoing privacy awareness campaign run by
the office.
Australian Institute of Family Studies
3.28
The committee briefly examined the Australian Institute of Family
Studies. Matters discussed included the effect of the efficiency dividend on
the agency, and the amount of research currently being undertaken.
Australian National Audit Office
3.29
The committee spent considerable time questioning the Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO) on government advertising. The ANAO explained that
under the guidelines developed and administered by the Department of Finance
and Deregulation, any campaign over the value of $250,000 conducted by an
agency is referred to the ANAO for possible review. Since the current
guidelines came into operation in July 2008, there have been approximately 29
campaigns reviewed by ANAO.[25]
Mr Peter White, Group Executive Director of the Performance Audit Services
Group was asked to outline the guideline, and responded stating:
There are five broad categories in the guidelines: material
should be relevant to government responsibilities; the material should be
presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner; material should not be
directed at promoting party political interests; material should be produced
and distributed in an efficient, effective and relevant manner with due regard
to accountability; and the last, very broad one is that the advertising must
comply with legal requirements.[26]
3.30
It was asked whether the advertising campaign on the cash stimulus
payments was in accordance with ANAO's guidelines in that recipients did not
need to do anything to receive the payments, rendering the campaign
unnecessary. Mr Michael White, an Executive Director of the Performance Audit
Services Group, replied:
In a number of those types of situations that we have looked
at, one of the things we would look at are the operational costs of call
centres when those kinds of payments are made and someone has not provided
advice in advance. If the call centre advices are extreme then obviously it is
part of the cost-benefit analysis. It would be listed as one of the costs of
the campaign, as opposed to the benefit of, say, providing them a letter of
advice in advance of them receiving it.[27]
3.31
The discussion moved on to campaigns below the value of $250,000.
According to the ANAO, unless a campaign was deemed sensitive by the Department
of Finance and Deregulation and referred to the ANAO, they would not
necessarily be aware of it.[28]
When asked whether there could be many low-value campaigns that are not being
referred to ANAO, the Deputy Auditor-General, Mr Steve Chapman responded:
Correct, but I suspect that public scrutiny and others might
have an opinion about that and there would be some feedback mechanism to it. We
have found that, in our relationship with departments who are referring
campaigns to us, they tend to take a conservative approach and often seek to
discuss the campaign with us in an informal way—I am talking here about
campaigns of over $250,000—to ensure that they do fully comply with the
guidelines.[29]
3.32
Other issues considered include a Department of Climate Change
advertising campaign, credit card use in the public service, and the economic
stimulus website. Further detail on the last issue can be found in the general
issues section of Chapter 1.
Australian Public Service Commission
3.33
The Public Service Commissioner, Ms Lynelle Briggs, was asked to comment
on a potential affiliation of the Community and Public Sector Union with ACT
Labor. The Commissioner was not aware of any concerns raised with the
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), though agreed to take the matter
on notice. Senator Faulkner made reference to APS Values and Code of Conduct, and
noted that it was quite acceptable for APS employees to participate in
political activities and that they were expected to separate their personal
views on policy issues in the performance of their official duties.[30]
Old Parliament House
3.34
Old Parliament House was questioned on the recent opening of the Museum
of Australian Democracy with reference to the consultation of former Prime
Minister Howard in relation to exhibits concerning his time as Prime Minister.
The matter was taken on notice.
Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security
3.35
Following on from discussion of the Defence White Paper with the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Inspector-General, Mr Ian
Carnell was questioned about media reports that he had investigated alleged
pressure on Defence Intelligence Organisation officials to alter their
assessments for the White Paper. Mr Carnell confirmed that he had conducted an
investigation, but it was as part of his routine activities.[31]
He informed the committee that he found no evidence of improper pressure,
stating:
In the course of that inquiry, one of the several things I
did was to do a survey of DIO staff. We examined the responses, naturally.
There was some questioning in a small number of the survey responses as to the
debate and pressure that had gone on—at least pressure in the eyes of some—in
relation to DIO’s contribution to the white paper. When I say contribution, I had
the advantage of listening to a part of the proceedings earlier in the day. As
the minister at the table described, DIO produced a set of papers that were
provided to the white paper as input. I did examine this question of had there
been improper pressure. You naturally expect, in the course of assessment
activity, for there to be debate or challenge and sometimes that can be robust.
For me, it is a question of: is a line crossed where it is said to be improper
pressure? The sorts of things that I have in mind there are: is there an
attempt to direct what the judgments ought to be; are there threats either
expressed or implied; or, indeed, does the conduct approach harassment or
bullying or that sort of thing? The finding I made in this regard was that there
was no improper pressure in relation to DIO’s development of those products. In
my forthcoming annual report I propose to have as an annexe the unclassified
executive summary findings and recommendations from this inquiry. You will be
able to see there that it is stated as a clear finding that I found no evidence
of improper pressure.[32]
3.36
The Inspector-General also discussed budgetary matters with the
committee.
Office of National Assessments
3.37
The committee also questioned the Office of National Assessments (ONA)
on the Defence White Paper. In particular, the Director-General of ONA, Mr
Peter Varghese was asked whether he had written to the Prime Minister
expressing concern about a distortion of national security priorities in
relation to China. Mr Varghese replied:
I am not going to go into the details of any correspondence I
have with the Prime Minister, but what is very relevant to your question is
that the issue I may have raised in a letter to the Prime Minister went to the
methodology of the white paper and not to the issue to which you refer. And I
should add that the methodology issue that I raised was very satisfactorily
resolved.[33]
3.38
In response to a question, on whether Mr Varghese, and officers of ONA's
views were satisfactorily reflected in the White Paper, Mr Varghese answered
that there were 'no strategic judgments in the White Paper with which I
disagree'.[34]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page