Management and Accountability

Departmental corporate governance overview

On 16 June 2008, the department’s structure was changed to better reflect the government’s priorities for the portfolio:

• Helping our portfolio industries prepare and adapt to climate change and reviewing drought policy and programs.
• Increasing our industries’ productivity and innovation to remain competitive and sustainable in the face of climate change.
• Improving our biosecurity and quarantine systems to manage potential incursions of animal and plant diseases and pests as climate changes.
• Maintaining and expanding international market access.

Our planned outcome and corporate governance have been adjusted to meet these four priorities.

Corporate governance practices

The department’s corporate governance framework is based on accountability, transparency and integrity. It provides for clear corporate direction and leadership, effective corporate planning and performance management, a culture of accepting personal responsibility, effective internal communication and appropriate corporate control.

The governance framework allows us to achieve our policy, program and regulatory objectives efficiently, effectively and ethically, and to deal with emerging strategic issues and risks. It also ensures that we meet all our statutory requirements, especially those under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) and the Public Service Act 1999.

The governance framework encompasses interlinking executive committees (described below), allowing a structured and integrated approach to decision making.

The framework is supported by arrangements to embed effective project and risk management into planning and ensure critical function continuity and recovery; an internal audit program to improve business processes and mitigate risk; a Fraud Control Plan; and an active security awareness and compliance program, to provide a safe and secure work environment, protect the department’s physical and intellectual assets, allow improved grants management and drive a culture that promotes staff compliance.

We continually review and refine our governance framework to take account of emerging needs and better practice governance models.

Senior management committees and their roles

Executive Management Team

The Executive Management Team (EMT) is the main advisory body to the secretary on strategic direction, priorities, management policy and performance reporting. The EMT is chaired by the secretary. Membership consists of the four deputy secretaries—one of whom is also the Executive Director, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS); another the Executive Director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)—the Executive Director of the Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS), the Chief Operating Officer and the Executive Manager, Corporate Policy Division.

The EMT oversights the department’s financial and operational performance and is responsible for business and strategic planning. It advises the secretary on overall direction, strategies and policies in such areas as human resource management, communications, planning, information technology (IT), information management, security and governance. The EMT is also responsible for collegiate leadership and the achievement of shared departmental performance targets.

During 2007–08, the EMT met nine times in scheduled meetings (see Table 25) and oversaw initiatives that included:

• ensuring the appropriate allocation of resources to achieve government outcomes
• improving the department’s preparedness for emergencies that adversely affect agriculture
• enhancing organisational performance measurement
• achieving closer coordination on biosecurity and quarantine matters
• increasing Australia’s participation in international work on plant protection and the management of emerging and re-emerging animal diseases.

Summaries of EMT meetings are communicated to staff through an all-staff email from the secretary and are posted on our intranet.

Table 25 Attendance at Executive Management Team meetings, 2007–08
Member	Role	Membership period	Meetings attended	Possible attendance at meetings
Dr Conall O’Connell	Secretary (chair)	Full year	9	9
Mr Daryl Quinlivan	Deputy Secretary	Full year	9	9
Dr Cliff Samson	Deputy Secretary
Executive Director, AQIS from 20 June 2008	Full year	8	9
Mr Stephen Hunter	Deputy Secretary
Executive Director, AQIS to 20 June 2008	Full year	5	9
Mr Phillip Glyde	Deputy Secretary
Executive Director, ABARE	Full year	6	9
Dr Colin Grant	Executive Director, BRS	Full year	7	9
Mr Bill Pahl	Chief Operating Officer	Full year	8	9
Mr David Williamson	Acting Executive Manager, Corporate Policy Executive Manager, Corporate Policy	1 July 2007 to 4 June 2008 5 June 2008 to 30 June 2008	8 1	8 1
Mr Craig Burns	Acting Deputy Secretary	5 May 2008 to 15 June 2008 23 June 2008 to 30 June 2008	1	1
Mr Greg Read	Acting Executive Director, AQIS	18 March 2008	1	1
Dr James Findlay	Acting Executive Director, BRS	19 January 2008 to 27 January 2008 18 March 2008	1	1
Ms Karen Schneider	Acting Executive Director, ABARE	19 November 2007 to 26 November 2007 29 May 2008 to 30 June 2008	1	1

Audit Committee

The departmental Audit Committee assists the secretary by providing independent assurance on departmental governance, risk, control, compliance and financial reporting. The committee approves the risk-based annual internal audit work program, considers the results of external audits from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), monitors the effectiveness of departmental controls and treatments in mitigating risks, and promotes improvements to underpin the achievement of departmental objectives. The committee oversees the development and implementation of the department’s Fraud Control Plan.

The committee is chaired by a deputy secretary and includes two Band 2 senior executives from the department appointed by the secretary, and two external non-government members approved by the secretary. The Chief Operating Officer, Chief Finance Officer, General Manager Governance and Planning, Director Internal Audit, senior representatives of the ANAO and a representative of Ernst & Young (our internal audit service provider) have observer status at committee meetings. The director of the Business Ethics, Security and Investigations Unit attends the meetings as required, particularly with regard to fraud control.

The non-government members of the committee are:

• Ms Mary Boydell—a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants with more than 30 years experience in commerce and audit oversight and a Bachelor of Commerce (University of Queensland).
• Mr Michael Harris—a certified practising accountant, a Fellow of CPA Australia and a member of the Institute of Internal Auditors with more than 40 years experience in accounting and auditing, and the holder of an Accountancy Certificate (CIT).

Finance Subcommittee of the Audit Committee

The Finance Subcommittee is appointed by and reports to the Audit Committee. The subcommittee meets before every meeting of the Audit Committee and as required to monitor the production of our annual financial statements. The subcommittee is chaired by Mr Michael Harris. Members include the Chief Finance Officer and Senior Finance Officer AQIS, and Ms Mary Boydell. Observers to the subcommittee are the Director Internal Audit and the ANAO officer responsible for the external audit of the financial statements.

Table 26 Attendance at Audit Committee meetings, 2007–08
Member	Role	Membership period	Meetings attended	Possible attendance at meetings
Mr Daryl Quinlivan	Chair, Deputy Secretary	16 August 2007 to 30 June 2008	6	6
Ms Jenni Gordon	Senior executive	Full year	7	7
Mr Tom Aldred	Senior executive	Full year	6	7
Mr Michael Harris	External non-government member	Full year	7	7
Ms Mary Boydell	External non-government member	Full year	7	7
Mr Stephen Hunter	Chair, Deputy Secretary	1 July 2007 to 15 August 2007	1	1

Risk Management Committee

The Risk Management Committee, a subcommittee of the EMT, is responsible for overseeing the establishment of a departmental risk management system, including managing the department’s strategic risks and monitoring divisional risk management and business continuity activity. The committee is chaired by a deputy secretary and includes senior executives and representatives from each division, and liaises closely with the Audit Committee.

The Risk Management Committee met seven times during 2007–08. The committee oversaw the implementation of recommendations flowing from the department’s live business continuity exercise, ‘Blancmange’; the update of the departmental Pandemic Contingency Plan; the revision of methodology for risk reporting; and the evaluation of the department’s corporate risks.

Secretary and deputy secretaries meetings

The secretary and deputy secretaries meet weekly or more often to consider urgent operational and policy matters, and to monitor and discuss management response options.

Portfolio business meetings

The minister usually meets the department’s Executive regularly to discuss high-profile issues involving the portfolio.

Weekly business meeting

The weekly business meeting of the executive managers and directors ensures effective communication with the divisions on important matters and executive decisions, and identifies priorities and high-profile issues for the coming week. The meeting also gives the secretary and deputy secretaries an opportunity to provide feedback from portfolio business meeting, Cabinet and ministerial council meetings, and to advise members of outcomes from the meetings of the EMT and other senior management committees.

Senior executives’ responsibilities

Table 27 lists the department’s senior executives and their responsibilities at 30 June 2008.

Table 27 Senior executives of the department at 30 June 2008
Position	Person	Responsibilities
Secretary	Dr Conall O’Connell	Efficient and effective operation of the department Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine Chair of the Executive Management Team (EMT) Chair of the Primary Industries Standing Committee Co-chair of the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee Member of the Food Regulation Standing Committee of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Chair of the National Emergency Animal Disease Management Group Chair of the National Emergency Plant Pest Management Group Departmental representative on Food Regulation Standing Committee Ex-officio member of the Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council
Deputy Secretary	Mr Daryl Quinlivan	Assistance to the secretary across a broad range of issues and functions Member of the EMT Chair of the Audit Committee Oversight responsibility for the work of the Climate Change and Corporate Policy divisions Deputy Commissioner on the Murray–Darling Basin Commission Government director on the Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Deputy Secretary Executive Director, AQIS (to 20 June 2008)	Mr Stephen Hunter	Assistance to the secretary across a broad range of issues Member of the EMT
Deputy Secretary Executive Director, AQIS (from 20 June 2008)	Dr Cliff Samson	Assistance to the secretary across a broad range of issues and functions, particularly the department’s biosecurity functions Member of the EMT Oversight responsibility for the work of the Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health division and AQIS Responsible for coordination of work of Biosecurity Australia with department’s divisions Chair of the Risk Management Committee Security Executive—responsibilities under government policy Departmental representative on Food Regulation Standing Committee
Deputy Secretary Executive Director, ABARE	Mr Phillip Glyde	Assistance to the secretary across a broad range of issues and functions Efficient and effective operation of ABARE Provision of timely and relevant briefing and advice to the department and government on economic issues affecting portfolio industries Member of the EMT Chair of the Graduate Committee Disability Champion
A/g Deputy Secretary from 20 June 2008	Mr Craig Burns	Assistance to the secretary across a broad range of issues and functions Efficient and effective management of the Trade and Market Access Division, Agricultural Productivity Division and Sustainable Resource Management Division Development and implementation of international agricultural policies Management of the department’s international operations and representation
Chief Veterinary Officer	Dr Andy Carroll	Adviser to the secretary on a range of animal health issues Australian Government Chief Veterinary Officer Departmental representative on: the animal health quadrilateral group Animal Health Committee Member of the Australian Animal Health Laboratory Strategic Policy Group Chair of the Primary Industries Standing Committee / Primary Industries Ministerial Council Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Diseases Member SAFEMEAT Partnership Chair of the Aquatic Animal Health Committee
Executive Director, BRS	Dr Colin Grant	Efficient and effective operation of BRS Provision of timely and relevant briefing and advice to the department and government on scientific issues affecting portfolio industries Member of the EMT Member of the BRS Executive Committee Member for the Coordination Committee on Science and Technology Member of the International Science Standing Committee Member of the advisory board of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis
Chief Operating Officer	Mr Bill Pahl	Assistance to the secretary across a broad range of issues and functions Efficient and effective operation of the Management Services Division Member of the EMT Member of the Implementation and Monitoring Forum Committee for the departmental Collective Agreement 2006–09
Executive managers and deputy executive directors	Mr David Williamson Corporate Policy	Efficient and effective operation of the Corporate Policy Division Member of the EMT
	Mr Tom Aldred, Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health	Efficient and effective operation of the Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health (PIAPH) Division Development and implementation of PIAPH policies and programs for food and product safety, animal and plant health, and animal welfare Member of the Audit Committee
	Mr Ian Thompson Sustainable Resource Management	Efficient and effective operation of the Sustainable Resource Management Division Development and implementation of policies and programs for Landcare, sustainable production, Caring for our Country, and domestic fisheries and aquaculture Government member of the National Rural Advisory Council
	Mr Allen Grant Agricultural Productivity	Efficient and effective operation of the Agricultural Productivity Division Development and implementation of policies and programs for the food, horticulture, wine, livestock and cropping industries and the agricultural innovation, research and training sector
	Mr David Mortimer Climate Change	Efficient and effective operation of the Climate Change Division Development and implementation of policies and programs for drought, climate change, farm adjustment and forestry Government member of the Wheat Export Authority
	Mr Paul Morris A/g Executive Manager, Trade and Market Access, from 20 June 2008	Efficient and effective operation of the Trade and Market Access Division Development and implementation of policies and programs to advance portfolio interests in multilateral and bilateral trade, international fisheries and the live animal trade Oversight of technical market access issues across relevant areas of the department
	Ms Jenet Connell Business Strategy & Corporate Services, AQIS	Efficient and effective operation of AQIS business strategies, and corporate and information services
	Mr Greg Read Export Programs, AQIS	Efficient and effective operation of AQIS Export Services and animal programs and delivery of AQIS business strategies Chair of the Export Meat Industry Advisory Committee Chair of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems
	Ms Jenni Gordon Quarantine Systems, AQIS	Efficient and effective operation of AQIS quarantine systems and delivery of AQIS business strategies Member of Audit Committee Chair of AQIS Assurance Subcommittee
	Mr Tim Chapman A/g Executive Manager, Quarantine Operations, AQIS, from 20 June 2008	Efficient and effective operation of AQIS quarantine operational programs and delivery of AQIS business strategies
	Ms Karen Schneider Deputy Executive Director, ABARE	Leadership of ABARE research and corporate programs
	Mr Don Gunasekera Chief Economist, ABARE	Leadership of ABARE research programs

Senior executive remuneration policy

The department’s remuneration policy allows variation between individual jobs, based on market and work value considerations. This is critical to our ability to compete effectively in the employment market.

Further information on senior executive remuneration is in the financial statements in this annual report.

Ethical standards

In 2007–08, the department advanced several initiatives to establish and maintain appropriate ethical standards.

We completed the implementation of the 2005–07 fraud control plan prepared to meet the requirements of the Australian Government’s fraud control policy and the FMA Act. This work included the promulgation of asset disposal procedures and the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding with Australia Post for access to closed circuit television footage in work areas.

After a comprehensive fraud risk assessment of all the department’s programs and administered activities in May 2008, the department formulated a revised fraud control plan, which was approved by the Audit Committee in June 2008. The revised plan includes actions to improve controls (for example, addressing fraud prevention, detection, investigation, and reporting requirements in grants management).

We continued to train staff in fraud control, governance, ethics and security, particularly through the induction process. The training promotes the Australian Public Service (APS) Values (www.apsc.gov.au/values) and Code of Conduct (www.apsc.gov.au/conduct). We maintained procedures for reporting and investigating fraud and serious misconduct.

We developed our governance framework by updating information on and training in new and revised Chief Executive Instructions, by implementing a policy on outside employment of staff, and by improving the interface between the department’s delegations database and human resource management system. We improved communication to all staff on governance matters and the APS Values, including policies covering post-separation employment and contacts between public servants and professional lobbyists, and used our internal audit function to monitor business practices.

In 2006, the then secretary appointed the department’s Chief Operating Officer, Mr Bill Pahl, as her delegate to determine whether some departmental employees had breached the APS Code of Conduct by using the department’s electronic mail system to receive, retain and distribute inappropriate or offensive material and, if they had breached the code, to determine what, if any, sanction would be imposed under section 15 of the Public Service Act 1999. That investigation, which was carried out in accordance with the department’s Procedures for determining breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, continued throughout 2007–08 and in 2008–09.

At the time of publication of this annual report, 204 departmental employees were subject to the investigation. At 30 June 2008, 24 had had their employment terminated, 2 were reduced in classification, 20 had had a reduction in salary, 90 had been fined, and 24 had been reprimanded.

The department has adopted a zero tolerance policy so far as the distribution of inappropriate or offensive material is concerned. It is not permissible to send or store any photographs, videos or other images that are not work related, and computer users must agree unconditionally to our conditions of use before gaining access to the system. Training focusing specifically on the APS Code of Conduct began in September 2007 for all employees and continues to be delivered as part of the formal induction process.

While the events that necessitated these actions were regrettable, they gave the department an incentive to reinforce its organisational commitment to uphold the APS Values and Code of Conduct.

Risk management

During the year, we continued to integrate risk management into our decision making and planning.

In early 2008, we finalised development of risk management training packages. From February to April 2008, we delivered this training to more than 300 senior employees and project managers. Less intensive training will continue through 2008–09 and beyond to improve understanding of risk management across the department.

During October 2007, the EMT reviewed management controls for the department’s corporate risks and agreed that two risks required further treatment: workforce capacity and border protection. The Management Services Division and the Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health Division, respectively, were given responsibility for developing and implementing treatments to manage the risks.

We developed a ‘traffic light’ risk management reporting template to enable divisions to report on their risks to the EMT every quarter. The divisions provided risk reports for the final quarter of the 2007–08 financial year. We are refining the template and the process to reduce the reporting burden on the divisions and to improve the clarity of the reports.

According to the 2008 Comcover Risk Management Benchmarking Survey, our overall risk management performance was above average compared with other large Australian Government agencies. Our ratings for business continuity arrangements continue to be strong (the department achieved the highest possible score). We improved in every category, except one (which was the same as last year) and this was reflected in a significantly improved overall score.

Each division reviewed detailed procedural instructions to complement the Departmental Business Continuity Plan, which outlines how we would deliver our critical functions in the event of a significant disruption to business.

In such circumstances, we will use the department’s Critical Incident Response Plan to provide the command and control framework for response and recovery. We undertook a live exercise to test the plan in August 2007; further tests are planned for 2008–09.

Corporate performance planning and reporting

Our 2007–08 corporate and performance planning and reporting framework included the components shown in Figure 11.

The Portfolio Budget Statements, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements and Portfolio Supplementary Additional Estimates Statements (www.daff.gov.au/about/budget) stated the portfolio agencies’ planned outcomes, appropriations and revenue, and the purpose of the portfolio budget measures.

The 2007–2010 Corporate Plan (www.daff.gov.au/about/publications/corporate-plan) set out our plans for four calendar years.

Annual divisional business plans documented how each division would deliver individual outputs through projects.

Individual work plans and learning agreements documented the work that staff agreed to undertake, the work standards they agreed to meet, the skills they needed, and how they would improve those skills through agreed learning and development activities.

Financial reports, which were reviewed at each Executive Management Team meeting, reported on year-to-date and end-of-year projections against budget.

Two business performance reviews were conducted for each division (in December and June). The reviews reported risks and achievements against the Portfolio Budget Statements performance indicators and government priorities.

Other documents supporting our operations in 2007–08 included the Communications Strategy, the Governance Framework, the Internal Audit Plan, the Fraud Control Plan, Chief Executive Instructions, the Risk Management Plan, Workplace Diversity Plan, the Collective Agreement 2006–09, the Capability Framework and the Learning and Development Strategy.

Assets management

The department manages some 2000 assets around Australia and has 5500 IT-related assets under a leasing arrangement, with a total asset value of $84 million. We hold several classes of assets: land and buildings, plant and equipment, intangibles (software) and leased IT equipment. Our major investments in assets are in land, buildings and intangibles. Third parties manage our land, buildings and leased assets under outsourcing contracts. The department’s asset register is centrally managed, and a specialist team provides guidance on asset management and disposal.

To achieve departmental objectives and business requirements, the department controls acquisitions and enhancements to the existing asset base through a capital budgeting process, which is approved by the EMT. As part of the annual budget process, divisions prepare and submit capital budget proposals for consideration and approval.

During 2007–08, there was a large movement in assets, including disposals resulting from the move of the department’s head office from Barton to Civic, and the fit-out of the new buildings.

Response to the Uhrig Report

Legislative amendments and changed accountability arrangements to implement outcomes from the Uhrig Report assessments of portfolio agencies have largely been completed.

Actions during 2007–08 were as follows:

• Legislation to change the governance framework of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from a board to an executive management structure came into effect from 1 July 2007.
• The Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation ceased operations on 3 September 2007 and was replaced by Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited.
• When the Wheat Export Authority was replaced by the Export Wheat Commission on 1 October 2007 as part of amendments to the Wheat Marketing Act 1989, the earlier body’s board structure was replaced by the commission’s executive management structure. The commission ceased on 1 July 2008 and a new regulator, Wheat Exports Australia, was created to develop and administer an accreditation scheme for bulk wheat exporters.
• The Australian Fisheries Management Authority became a commission and prescribed agency under the FMA Act from 1 July 2008.

Back to contents

---

Biosecurity Australia corporate governance overview

Corporate governance practices

Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act), the Chief Executive of Biosecurity Australia is responsible for the efficient, effective and ethical use of Australian Government resources. Three key committees help the Chief Executive meet his responsibilities: the Biosecurity Australia Governance Committee, the Audit Committee and the Systems Committee.

Senior management committees and their roles

Biosecurity Australia Governance Committee

The Governance Committee supports the Chief Executive in the leadership and management of Biosecurity Australia. The committee comprises the Chief Executive (chair), two Principal Scientists (one for animal biosecurity and the other for plant biosecurity), the general managers of the Animal Biosecurity, Biosecurity Development and Communications, and Plant Biosecurity branches, and the Chief Finance Officer. The managers of the Animal and Plant Biosecurity secretariats also attend as ex-officio members. During 2007–08, the Governance Committee met four times in regular meetings (see Table 28).

At 30 June 2008, the members of the Biosecurity Australia Governance Committee were:

Mr John Cahill, Chief Executive (chair)
John Cahill commenced as Chief Executive of Biosecurity Australia on 1 December 2004. He was previously with AQIS, where he managed Australia’s quarantine border operations and corporate management.

Dr Bill Roberts, Principal Scientist, Plant Biosecurity
Bill Roberts was formerly the Chief Plant Protection Officer. He has worked in a range of organisations in Australia and overseas, including for a time as the Coordinator of the International Plant Protection Convention.

Dr Mike Nunn, Principal Scientist, Animal Biosecurity
Mike Nunn is a veterinary epidemiologist with Australian and international experience in the detection, reporting, diagnosis, control and eradication of emergency animal diseases. He has particular interests in risk analysis and the ecology of emerging infectious diseases.

Ms Louise van Meurs, General Manager, Plant Biosecurity
Louise van Meurs has over 15 years experience in the operational and policy areas of the department, having held management positions in Biosecurity Australia and in AQIS, where she was responsible for AQIS’s airports, mail and plant program areas.

Dr Robyn Martin, General Manager, Animal Biosecurity
Robyn Martin has worked in AQIS and then Biosecurity Australia for the past 10 years. She has previously worked in veterinary research, state government agriculture departments and private veterinary practice.

Mr Bill Magee, General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications Branch
Bill Magee has worked in the department since 1985, mainly with the plant quarantine and grain export programs in AQIS until 1999 and since then with Biosecurity Australia and the Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health Division.

Dr Ann McDonald, General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications Branch
Ann McDonald was responsible for the development of policies and strategies relating to biosecurity systems, communications, and business planning, monitoring and review, until her departure to AQIS in June 2008.

Mr Robert Gehrig, Chief Finance Officer
Robert Gehrig has been the Chief Finance Officer of Biosecurity Australia since June 2007. He previously worked in a number of financial roles within the department. Robert is a member of the Society of Certified Practising Accountants (CPA Australia).

Mr Neil McWaters, Senior Manager, Plant Biosecurity
Neil McWaters has 13 years experience with AQIS and most recently with Biosecurity Australia.

Mr Warren Vant, Manager, Animal Biosecurity
Warren Vant has over 30 years experience in policy and administrative issues in quarantine, agriculture and trade portfolios, including many years providing non-technical support to the Animal Biosecurity Branch of Biosecurity Australia.

Biosecurity Australia internal audit function and Audit Committee

Biosecurity Australia continues to commission internal audits, based on its risk management plan, and considers the outcomes of relevant department-wide internal audits. An internal audit on the new import risk analysis (IRA) process began in late 2007 and has reached the management discussion phase.

Biosecurity Australia’s Audit Committee has oversight of financial reporting, the internal control structure, risk management, fraud control systems and internal and external audit functions. The committee comprises the General Manager of Biosecurity Development and Communications Branch (chair), the General Manager of Animal Biosecurity, and an external independent member.

The Biosecurity Australia Chief Finance Officer, the department’s Chief Finance Officer and representatives from the department’s Internal Audit and the Australian National Audit Office also attend meetings as advisers and observers. The committee met four times during 2007–08 (see Table 29).

At 30 June 2008, the members of the Biosecurity Australia Audit Committee were:

Mr Bill Magee, General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications Branch (see ‘Biosecurity Australia Governance Committee’)
Dr Robyn Martin, General Manager, Animal Biosecurity (see ‘Biosecurity Australia Governance Committee’)
Ms Glenys Roper, independent member

Glenys Roper has held a range of senior executive positions in the Australian Government. She was Controller of the Royal Australian Mint and later the Chief Executive of the government’s Information and Communications Technology Office. She is now a non-executive director on a number of boards, principally in the finance sector. She also chairs or is a member of various boards and committees, including a number of audit committees, in the Australian, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory governments.

Glenys is active in the not-for-profit sector, and was chair of the Canberra Symphony Orchestra until recently. She is currently deputy chair of the Australian Capital Territory Cultural Facilities Corporation. She has been awarded the Channel 9 – Louis Vuitton Award for leadership and achievement.

Table 28 Attendance at Biosecurity Australia Governance Committee meetings, 2007–08
Member	Role	Membership period	Meetings attended	Possible attendance at meetings
Mr John Cahill	Chief Executive (chair)	Full year	4	4
Dr Bill Roberts	Principal Scientist Plant Biosecurity	Full year	2	4
Dr Mike Nunn	Principal Scientist Animal Biosecurity	Full year	3	4
Ms Louise van Meurs	General Manager Plant Biosecurity	Full year	4	4
Dr Robyn Martin	General Manager Animal Biosecurity	Full year	3	4
Dr Ann McDonald	General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications	To 15 June 2008	4 a	4
Mr Bill Magee	General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications	From 16 June 2008	0	0
Mr Robert Gehrig	Chief Finance Officer	Full year	4 b	4
Mr Neil McWaters	Senior Manager, Plant Biosecurity	Full year	3	4
Mr Warren Vant	Manager, Animal Biosecurity	Full year	4	4
a One with J Wilson, acting in the position, substituting. b One with L Hosking, acting in the position, substituting.

Table 29 Attendance at Biosecurity Australia Audit Committee meetings, 2007–08
Member	Role	Membership period	Meetings attended	Possible attendance at meetings
Dr Ann McDonald	General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications (chair)	To 15 June 2008	3 a	3
Mr Bill Magee	General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications (chair)	From 16 June 2008	1	1
Dr Robyn Martin	General Manager, Animal Biosecurity	Full year	2	5
Ms Glenys Roper	Independent member	Full year	5	5

Table 30 Attendance at Biosecurity Australia Systems Committee meetings, 2007–08
Member	Role	Membership period	Meetings attended	Possible attendance at meetings
Dr Ann McDonald	General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications (chair)	To 15 June 2008	3 a	3
Mr Bill Magee	General Manager, Biosecurity Development and Communications (chair)	From 16 June 2008	0	0
Dr Bill Roberts	Principal Scientist, Plant Biosecurity	Full year	2	3
Dr Mike Nunn	Principal Scientist, Animal Biosecurity	Full year	3	3
Dr Robyn Martin	General Manager, Animal Biosecurity	Full year	2	3
Ms Louise van Meurs	General Manager, Plant Biosecurity	Full year	2	3
a One with J Wilson, acting in the position, substituting.

Table 31 Senior executives of Biosecurity Australia at 30 June 2008
Position	Person	Responsibilities
Chief Executive	Mr John Cahill	Management of Biosecurity Australia
General managers	Dr Robyn Martin, Animal Biosecurity	Management of biosecurity policy relating to the import and export of animals and their products
	Ms Louise van Meurs, Plant Biosecurity	Management of biosecurity policy relating to the import and export of plants and their products
	Mr Bill Magee, Biosecurity Development and Communications	Management of governance, systems, biosecurity development and communications
Principal Scientists	Dr Bill Roberts, Plant Biosecurity	Provision of expert advice to the Chief Executive on complex plant biosecurity matters
	Dr Mike Nunn, Animal Biosecurity	Provision of expert advice to the Chief Executive on complex animal biosecurity matters

Biosecurity Australia Systems Committee

Biosecurity Australia’s Systems Committee oversees and steers activities to develop, improve and maintain the agency’s business systems, particularly information technology systems.

The committee comprises the General Manager of Biosecurity Development and Communications Branch (chair), the Principal Scientists, and the general managers of the Animal Biosecurity and Plant Biosecurity branches. The committee has a working group to provide input, deliver projects and work with internal and external resources to deal with priority matters raised by the committee. The Systems Committee met three times during 2007–08 (see Table 30).

Senior executives’ responsibilities

Table 31 lists the senior executives of Biosecurity Australia and their responsibilities.

Senior executive remuneration policy

Senior executive remuneration in Biosecurity Australia is consistent with the remuneration arrangements for senior executives in the department.

Ethical standards

As a prescribed agency, Biosecurity Australia has Chief Executive Instructions covering such areas as fraud control, official conduct and hospitality. Where it has not been necessary to develop a separate instruction, the agency maintains standards identical to those of the department.

Biosecurity Australia maintains its own Fraud Control Plan, which complements and is integrated with the department’s plan.

The department provides fraud, ethics and security training for Biosecurity Australia staff. The department also manages the induction process for new recruits, which includes training in the APS Values and Code of Conduct, as well as fraud control and security.

Biosecurity Australia has a detailed and effective governance structure to guide and account for this process.

Risk management

Biosecurity Australia has adopted the department’s risk management framework.

Corporate performance planning and reporting

Biosecurity Australia outlined directions for 2007–08 as part of the department’s Corporate Plan 2007–10 (see Figure 11 on page 215). The agency’s planning was based on the 2007–08 Portfolio Budget Statements, government policy initiatives in biosecurity, and outcomes from 2006–07.

Based on the Corporate Plan, which covered Biosecurity Australia’s business planning, business continuity and financial reporting arrangements, the agency developed:

• Biosecurity Australia Branch Plans, which stated how each branch would deliver individual outputs
• the Communications Strategy, to guide interactions with stakeholders.

Performance reviews were conducted for each branch.

Back to contents

---

Management of human resources

Overview

Important work by the department’s Human Resources Branch during
2007–08 included:

• regular focus meetings with staff to seek their ideas
• continued review of our performance management systems
• development of our learning and development strategy
• continuation of the DAFF Management Program
• targeted graduate and trainee recruitment
• the automation of timesheets for shiftworkers, using the Timekeeper module in our Aurion human resources management platform.

Allyson Eadie, who is part of our People Development team, won the 2007 Australian Graduate Recruitment Industry Award for Graduate Recruiter of the Year in November 2007. The award, by the Australian Association of Graduate Employers, was for Allyson’s work in our 2007 Graduate Recruitment Program.

Appendix 1 of this report contains workforce statistics for the year.

Workforce planning and structure

The department continued to develop human resource strategies to nurture a sustainable and productive workforce, including a competency-based capability framework that guides our recruitment, performance management and workforce planning. The framework ensures that our people have the necessary skills to develop and implement departmental policies and programs.
In 2007, we produced a workforce and age profile that comprehensively analysed the department’s workforce. In 2008, we began monthly executive human resources overviews to provide the Executive with regular snapshots of key human resources information.

In July–August 2007, 2997 employees responded to our whole-of-department employee survey. Asked what they most liked about working for the department, they nominated:

• good working relationships with colleagues
• the chance to make a useful contribution to society
• opportunities to utilise skills and abilities
• flexible working arrangements
• interesting work.

The least liked aspects were:

• lack of recognition or appreciation of staff
• poor results from recruitment and promotion processes
• excessive or poorly distributed workload
• insufficient salaries
• dissatisfaction with some managers and supervisors
• ineffective communications and consultation (particularly at branch level and from the Executive).

Actions taken in response to survey results included regular all-employee meetings at division and branch levels, meetings between the secretary and employees to discuss various human resources matters, and a suite of initiatives to attract, retain, reward and recognise employees.

We now apply a 40-day time limit to all departmental recruitment to reduce over-long recruitment processes—a problem highlighted in the employee survey and the State of the service report 2006–07.

Online employee entry and exit surveys implemented in 2007–08 complemented the all-employee survey.

Recruiting people

The department’s high-profile entry-level recruitment programs continued to attract many quality candidates. The Graduate Development Program and the Traineeship Program provide structured training and development to prepare graduates and trainees for careers in the department and the wider Australian Public Service (APS).

In January 2008, 57 graduates from a range of disciplines began in the 2008 Graduate Development Program, an 11-month structured vocational program that leads to a Diploma of Government. The graduates undertake agency-specific training sessions and rotations to give them experience in program, policy and corporate management fields. At 30 June 2008, 53 graduates remained with us.

An additional eight graduates began work with the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) during the year. The graduates are allocated to specific research areas on commencement, based on their skills and interests. Their on-the-job training during their graduate year is complemented by a range of training activities, including formal programs in such areas as IT applications, writing and presentation skills, and an in-house weekly seminar program addressing topical economic issues and research techniques. The graduates are usually promoted during their first year with ABARE.

The Traineeship Program, a base-level recruitment pathway into the department, expanded its intake to 18 trainees for 2008. Trainees do not need experience or qualifications, and we encourage applications from all types of people, including school leavers, mature-aged people, Indigenous Australians and people with disabilities (for specific information about workplace diversity, see ‘Building a diverse workforce’ below). During the 10-month program, trainees study for a Certificate III in Government while they attend agency-specific training sessions and gain experience across the department. The trainees began work in February 2008 in most of our divisions, BRS and ABARE.

We employed 16 students in the 2008 University Vacation Employment Program, a six-week program in January and February. The students worked on topical projects throughout the department. This program continues to attract students to the department: three participants took immediate steps to begin careers with us, including by applying for the 2009 Graduate Development Program.

We completed several bulk recruitment rounds for Band 2 and Band 3 classifications. Bulk recruitment produces cost savings, allows us to plan and coordinate recruitment more effectively, and gives employees an opportunity to broaden their skills through lateral movement.

In addition to participating in department wide recruitment initiatives, BRS and ABARE also worked to attract the best people:

• BRS staff promoted career options directly to their professional colleagues and to university students, and the bureau continued its BRS Summer Scholarship arrangement with the Australian National University.
• ABARE hosted 10 economics undergraduates in its regular January–February vacation employment program. The students came to work in Canberra from a range of Australian universities. ABARE also awards scholarships at both Sydney University and the University of New England. Each scholarship is awarded to an outstanding undergraduate student entering their honours year in economics.

Developing people

The Human Resources Branch has prepared a departmental learning and development strategy. The strategy, which will be implemented early in 2008–09, will ensure that we target learning and development to maintain the skills and performance we need from our workforce. The branch continued to organise staff development activities to attract and retain highly skilled employees and to ensure that staff can achieve our objectives and their own aspirations.

The DAFF Management Program, which began in 2006, continued throughout 2007–08. The program builds the skills, leadership and confidence of our managers, who play a critical role in achieving our organisational objectives. Targeted at the Band 2 Level 5 to Band 3 Level 7 cohort and their equivalents, the 10-week program includes modules on policy development, program implementation, governance, financial/budget preparation, employee relations, presentation skills and career development. Since 1 July 2007, 217 employees have begun the program; 173 completed the course by 30 June 2008, and the rest continued into 2008–09.

AQIS launched a new performance management system that incorporates the APS Commission’s Integrated Leadership System, and supported the launch with national training programs delivered from April to July 2008 for all AQIS regional staff in Bands 1 and 2. Performance management training was once again a major component of the AQIS Middle Management Program, in which participants are coached and mentored through a series of supervisory training modules. AQIS continued to deliver induction training programs (including the On Plant Veterinary Induction course and the Certificate III in Government) to build organisational capability, and successfully trialled a meat inspector traineeship program, with the aim of recruiting and training more meat inspectors to meet operational requirements and further develop a professional workforce.

The Human Resources Branch worked to develop a system for identifying and addressing common staff training needs across the department. The system will enable better monitoring of training needs, make training more efficient, and provide significant cost savings. Piloting of the system began in July 2008.

Our Induction Program gave all new Canberra employees an overview of the department, its priorities and its key stakeholders. The program also covered occupational health and safety; performance management; information and records management; electronic communications; payroll and recruitment services; and governance (including the APS Values and Code of Conduct, security, fraud, ethics and risk management). In 2007–08, the Human Resources Branch worked with the department to improve the induction process and pass information to new employees more effectively. The new program will be implemented in September 2008.

Other programs provided to staff during the year included Indigenous cultural awareness training and a one-day program on exchanging constructive feedback. During 2007–08 all staff were required to attend training on the Code of Conduct and on bullying and harassment.

Staff also participated in the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation’s Australian Rural Leadership Program, the Australian Public Service Commission’s Career Development Assessment Centres, and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government’s Executive Masters of Public Administration and Executive Fellows Program.

Rewarding people

Fifteen employees received 2007–08 Development Awards. The awards give staff an opportunity to undertake professional and personal development activities that will benefit both them and the department in the long term. For example:

• Jennifer Medway (Rural Policy and Innovation Division) attended and participated in the 2nd World Congress of Young Farmers in Argentina to gain exposure to international perspectives and research on youth policy. She met OECD government officials to discuss the support offered to young people, and met Brazilian and Argentinean government officials to discuss youth perspectives in their countries.
• Andrew Hodges (ABARE) travelled to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe to conduct a series of interviews as part of an investigation of environmental stewardship program design. He applied the results of the investigation to the design of a stewardship program in Australia.
• Richard Mason (Fisheries and Forestry Division) attended and participated in the Understanding Forest Certification and Certification Schemes training course in Oxford, England, to gain an understanding of the development of forest certification schemes and the formulation of international and local forest management standards.

The 2008 Australia Day Achievement Awards recognised 12 teams and four individuals who had made outstanding contributions to the department’s work. Among the winning teams were those that:

• project-managed our Canberra office relocation
• developed the AQIS Capability Framework
• developed the department’s response to low levels of water availability in the Murray–Darling Basin and the implementation of the National Plan for Water Security
• facilitated quarantine clearance for the Talisman Saber 07 military exercise
• developed and delivered training modules in ministerial correspondence, speech preparation, media releases and workflow procedures.

In response to the 2007 employee survey, divisional reward and recognition schemes have been reviewed to develop a department-wide strategic approach. The results of the review and recommendations on the way forward will be presented to the EMT for consideration and then implemented during the remainder of 2008.

Retaining people

The proportion of the department’s ongoing staff leaving the department has been above the APS average since 2005–06, and markedly so in 2006–07 and 2007–08 (see Table 32 and Figure 12).

A higher employee turnover is normal during economic ‘boom’ times, when people have wider opportunities in the labour market. For example, the number of employees leaving both the department and the wider APS increased from 221 in 2006–07 to 361 in 2007–08. The relocation of our central office from Barton to Civic in 2007–08 is also likely to have contributed to higher turnover in that year.

As a proportion of all separations, employee-initiated separations rose in 2007–08 to match longer term averages, after a fall in 2006–07 (see Figure 13), while transfers to other APS agencies declined in proportion. Organisation-initiated separations doubled as a result of dismissals of staff for misuse of our computer systems (see ‘Ethical standards’, page 213).

From the inception of the department’s employee exit survey in October 2007 to 30 June 2008, 291 employees participated in the survey. Of those, 88 (30%) indicated that they were moving to other APS agencies, and 89% agreed that they had enjoyed good working relationships within their work teams.

Building a diverse workforce

Our Graduate Development, Traineeship, and Indigenous Cadetship programs continued to increase workforce diversity by including Indigenous people, people with disabilities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

To attract Indigenous graduates, we advertised in Indigenous publications and our staff visited Indigenous careers centres on university campuses.

Table 32 Separations, ongoing employees, 2004–05 to 2007–08
	2004–05	2005–06	2006–07	2007–08
Ongoing employees	3,955	4,433	4,674	4,791
Separation breakdown
Employee initiated	230	226	266	431
Organisation initiated	15	14	11	25
Transfer	69	96	187	163
Total separations	314	336	464	619
% separating (the department)	7.94%	7.58%	9.93%	12.92%
% separating (APS average)	8.51%	7.06%	7.50%	No data a
a The figure for the 2007–08 APS average is not yet available.

We also used the Australian Public Service Commission’s Indigenous Capability Fund to provide development opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. As a result, Indigenous staff attended various conferences and participated in the DAFF Management Program, the APS Commission’s development programs and a leadership development program.

AQIS, in particular, is involved in strategies to increase Indigenous employment in the APS. In 2007–08, AQIS recruited three Indigenous Australians through the APS Commission’s Indigenous Entry Level Recruitment Program. The new staff members are now performing quarantine functions, such as screening documents and inspecting imports, and completing formal and on-the-job training programs.

The department also supported community-wide projects to increase awareness and understanding of Indigenous Australians; for example, we co-sponsored the National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) Week School Initiative Competition.

Other initiatives to build workplace diversity in the department included:

• celebrating the International Day of People with Disability with a breakfast function for Canberra-based staff on 3 December 2007
• marking NAIDOC Week with a ceremony that showcased the department’s Indigenous programs and initiatives, followed by a spit-roast lunch.

We also maintained our commitment to implementing the Commonwealth Disability Strategy (see Appendix 3 for further details).

Performance management

The department’s performance management scheme integrates organisational, divisional and individual planning, and gives staff a clear understanding of our business priorities. Annual work plans and learning agreements cover work objectives, learning goals, and departmental and APS values.

In 2007–08, we used ‘upwards appraisal’ techniques to assess performance by Senior Executive Service (SES) employees. In this method, those who report to a manager prepare a group report on the manager’s performance for the manager’s supervisor. The report content is open-ended, but the report is not shown to the subject.

As part of the performance management framework, we are piloting ‘360-degree feedback’ for SES employees in 2008–09. In this form of feedback, superiors, staff and peers report on the employee’s performance, using a standard set of questions, and the report is supplied to the subject. The aim is to ensure that employees who report directly to an SES officer have the opportunity to comment on the officer’s performance as a manager and on their ongoing development. In future years, we intend to extend 360-degree feedback to other employees with significant management responsibilities.

In response to the 2007 employee survey, a review of the department’s performance management process is being prepared. Improvements identified in the review will be implemented in the 2008–09 performance period. In particular, the review will focus on linking performance assessments with core competencies for each work level as defined in the department’s Capability Framework, and will seek more flexible use of ratings so we can better recognise individual strengths and development needs.

Impact and features of certified, collective and Australian workplace agreements

Most of our staff are employed under the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Collective Agreement 2006–2009 or the Meat Program Agreement 2007–2010.

Non-salary benefits provided to non-SES employees include flex-time and study bank. Undercover car parking is offered for Central Office employees through a car-parking ballot system in which employees use the car park on a three-month rotation. We also offer car-parking to women in their final trimester of pregnancy.

As part of the move to the new head office, the department undertook to make childcare facilities available for staff. The nature of the site prevented the establishment of an onsite facility, but we were able to come to an arrangement with Northside Community Services for access to a number of places at its centres.

Collective agreement

The department’s current collective agreement runs to 30 June 2009, and we will work to develop a replacement agreement to commence in 2009–10. Early in 2008–09, we will review remuneration and options to ensure that we maintain a competitive salary and conditions package, and develop an engagement strategy as we prepare for the negotiation of a new collective agreement.

The new agreement will be comprehensive and provide the pay and conditions framework for all non-SES staff except those employed under the AQIS Meat Program Agreement 2007–10 and, where they continue to operate, Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).

• The agreement is expected to maintain important core elements, including:
• a performance assessment and management framework with defined performance measures
• procedures for resolving individual workplace grievances in a fair, unbiased manner
• enhanced flexible working hours arrangements
• arrangements for home-based work.

The AQIS Meat Program Agreement was replaced in 2007 and will expire in 2010. It is now a comprehensive agreement and is no longer read in conjunction with the Australian Public Service Award 1998.

Australian Workplace Agreements

In accordance with the Australian Government’s workplace relations policy, AWAs and Individual Transitional Employment Agreements are no longer offered to employees.
Current AWAs will be replaced by more contemporary arrangements as they expire.

Most SES employees now have remuneration arrangements reflected in individual determinations made under section 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999.

At 30 June 2008, the department had 312 AWAs in place (76 SES and 236 non-SES). Determinations made under section 24(1) of the Public Service Act applied to seven SES employees. Where an AWA has passed its expiry date, it continues to operate in conjunction with a determination to the extent of any inconsistency.

Productivity gains

The current collective agreement introduced clearly defined delegations and replaced implied authority to approve entitlements such as personal leave. Combined with better online information for staff, targeted training for delegates in the correct application of the provisions will reduce unplanned absenteeism to a minimum and thereby increase productivity.

The department’s Aurion systems team implemented a new module in our human resources management system during the year. The Timekeeper module will electronically record attendance and overtime by all shiftworkers (excluding meat inspectors), reducing administrative overheads and the risk of fraud.

We have developed a system to identify staff training needs and include learning and development plans in Aurion. We expect this system, which we began to pilot in June 2008, to reduce costs for common training needs across the department.

The progressive introduction of electronic timesheets for all shiftworkers in AQIS has substantially reduced processing time, resulting in less administrative work in filling out manual timesheets for those staff and less manual processing for payroll staff. We expect to conclude the rollout early in the new financial year.

AQIS also improved productivity by providing wireless computer connectivity (‘mobile on-the-job office’) for field managers, and is now rolling out broadband connectivity to Meat Program field staff. The rollout is being extended to remote sites as enabling technologies become available, and is nearly complete.

AQIS also made productivity gains through the delivery of Phase I of the Import Conditions (ICON) ePermits project, which allows the public to lodge electronic applications for import permits. About 30% of permit applications are now being made online.

The department has introduced online bookings for air travel (80% of which is now booked online), allowing us to obtain the ‘best fare of the day’. Together with a new preferred hotel program, this has allowed us to make savings while complying with the government’s target of 25% minimum usage of smaller airlines travel on the Canberra–Sydney route.

During 2007–08, the department commissioned a new electronic system for managing, tracking and reporting grants expenditure. Built on the Clarity project management platform, the new software centralises all data on grant recipients, project milestones and payments. The system reduces paperwork and increases reporting accuracy.

Health, safety and rehabilitation management

The department aims to maintain a safe and healthy work environment through continual consultation on occupational health and safety (OHS) between management and employees, including through the OHS Committee. The committee, which is chaired by the General Manager, Human Resources, assists in the development, implementation and monitoring of OHS policies and procedures to improve our performance and to ensure compliance with all legislative requirements. The OHS Committee met twice in 2007–08 (September 2007 and April 2008).

During the year, we worked to achieve high standards of OHS in all our work locations and operations by providing a safe system of work to prevent work-related injuries and illnesses.
Our national and regional OHS committees continued their programs to reduce illness and injury rates.

For further details, and for information required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991, see Appendix 2.

Back to contents

---

Service charters, customer satisfaction and complaints

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Client Service Charter identifies our responsibilities, our clients, the service standards our clients can expect, and ways clients can give feedback or make complaints. The charter, which is published on our website (www.daff.gov.au/service_charter), has been adopted by all divisions and by Biosecurity Australia. Several areas have developed additional targeted service documents.

AQIS has developed the AQIS Service Charter, which complements the department’s charter and provides measurable service targets for AQIS operations.

The ABARE Research Quality Statement informs clients about the research service standard for ABARE’s work.

Several departmental guidelines provide advice on dealing with clients from specific groups (such as women, young people and Indigenous Australians). These guidelines are available on our intranet. They emphasise staff’s responsibility to respond quickly to clients’ needs, and stress how critical this is to ensure quality service.

We review the Client Service Charter every three years. Each year, we ask departmental staff about their awareness of the charter and their understanding of their rights and obligations under it.

In addition, Biosecurity Australia, ABARE and BRS conduct annual surveys of their clients’ satisfaction with the services they provide.

The department

In conjunction with the APS Values and Code of Conduct and our own complementary values, the Client Service Charter commits us to delivering a high level of service to our clients.

The 2007 review of the charter, conducted by the Corporate Policy Division, included consultation across the department and incorporated stakeholder feedback. Based on this feedback, we simplified the charter and included an explanatory document for departmental staff.

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service

Because of AQIS’s high level of client interaction and the technical nature of its work, it convenes industry consultative committees to liaise with industry clients.

Since 1995, AQIS has used its annual client satisfaction survey (see Figure 14) to measure client satisfaction and to seek feedback on performance. The survey measures client satisfaction benchmarked against the previous year’s performance. Survey results are presented at AQIS industry consultative committees and are published on the department’s website.

Overall client satisfaction increased from 6.8 out of 10 in 1997 to 7.4 out of 10 in 2004. Since 2004, client satisfaction surveys have alternated between the agency’s Export and Quarantine divisions. Export clients rated their satisfaction at 7.4 out of 10 in 2007, while quarantine clients rated their satisfaction at 7.1 in 2008.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics

ABARE encourages and receives client feedback through its website, contact lists, telephone enquiry lines and an annual client survey. See Table 21, Output 8 performance, 2007–08, for details of client satisfaction as measured in the annual survey. Figure 15 shows trends since 2003–04.

ABARE also surveys participants in its annual national Outlook conference and regional Outlook conferences. See Table 21, Output 8 performance, for results from 2007–08.

Bureau of Rural Sciences

BRS participates in the department’s Client Service Charter and encourages direct client feedback through its website and telephone enquiry line.

BRS conducts a survey of its clients as part of an annual performance measurement cycle. Figure 16 shows trends since 2001–02.

See Table 18, Output 7 performance, for further details of client satisfaction in 2007–08.

Biosecurity Australia

Biosecurity Australia, which operates under the department’s Client Service Charter, provides detailed information on its risk analyses and other projects through policy memorandums (by email and hard copy to parties who have registered their interest), on its website, and in its publication, Biosecurity Australia News. Undertakings in relation to the import risk analysis process are given in the Import risk analysis handbook 2007; other information is updated on the Biosecurity Australia website.

Biosecurity Australia is taking action to address matters raised in its survey of stakeholders (detailed in the 2006–07 annual report). The agency has developed a communication strategy that addresses issues identified by stakeholders as requiring improvement. Among other things, Biosecurity Australia has provided regular updates about its work on its website and undertaken a review of the website to improve the site’s usefulness to stakeholders.

Complaints in 2007–08

During this period, the department’s Business Ethics, Security and Investigation Unit (BESIU) was the standard point of contact for complaints received through client service charter mechanisms or made directly to the unit’s director. BESIU does not deal with ‘quality of service’ complaints, which are handled by the divisions. BESIU received no complaints from clients in 2007–08.

In 2007–08, AQIS received a total of 383 complaints and 97 compliments. Since May 2008, the system of recording compliments and complaints has been reviewed. Some new processes, including categorisation according to type (human factor, process, systems, other) were introduced.

ABARE, BRS and Biosecurity Australia received no formal complaints during the year about failure to meet service standards.

Back to contents

---

Social justice and equity

The department practises the principles of social justice and equity detailed in the Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society, and uses publications, websites, CD-ROMs, meetings and advisory panels to promote those principles. We ensure that we are always accessible and fair when working with our clients.

During 2006–07, we contributed information to the successor to the Access and equity annual report, which was to be published as Accessible government services for all by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in 2007. That department has advised that the information for 2006–07 will now be incorporated into a new Access and equity report, covering two financial years (2006–07 and 2007–08). This will be a one-off consolidation due to the delays caused by the tabling of the 2005–06 report, the 2007 federal election and the need to brief the incoming government.

Highlights of our activities to promote social justice and equity, arranged according to the four key performance areas of the Access and equity report, included the following.

Responsiveness

Responsiveness is a measure of the extent to which programs and services are accessible, fair and responsive to the individual needs of clients.

We developed fair programs and services that were based on a sound knowledge of the needs, circumstances and cultural and other characteristics of clients. For example:

• The Rural Leadership Development component of Advancing Agricultural Industries helped women, young people and Indigenous Australians become more involved in portfolio industries. A six-month post-program survey of the Pathways to Leadership Course found that young people had increased their knowledge of industry issues and their skills in engaging industry stakeholders.
• The FarmBis program tackled inequity of access to business management and natural resource management (NRM) training by primary producers. The program subsidised them to attend training and supported training-related travel, accommodation and child care.

The department drew on cultural diversity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of programs and to support innovation in Australian enterprises. The Rural Indigenous Engagement Pilot Program increased the involvement of Indigenous people in the portfolio sector and encouraged self-reliant Indigenous primary industry enterprises.

The Targeted Industry Initiative component of the FarmBis program funded projects throughout Australia, including studies of the participation of youth and women in training and their role in farm businesses. The FarmBis program worked with the Indigenous Land Corporation to ensure that Indigenous land managers were able to attend relevant courses, and course categories were adapted to their particular needs.

The department’s NRM workforce includes an Indigenous team that supports Indigenous communities’ involvement in the delivery of NRM projects and programs. For example, the team has supported Indigenous access and activities under the new Caring for our Country initiative. We also recruited Indigenous land management facilitators based in each state and the Northern Territory to ensure effective communication and engagement with Indigenous stakeholders.

The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service continued to recruit Indigenous Australians through entry-level and graduate programs. Employees in the Far North took part in men’s and women’s community leadership programs during the year.

Communication

The communication performance area assesses how open and effective our channels of communication are.

The department provided information in appropriate media, publications, formats and languages. For example, opportunities to apply for grants for Advancing Agricultural Industries projects were published in national media and communicated through other means, such as the Natural Resource Managers Network.

Project plans incorporated communication strategies to disseminate results to stakeholders during and following projects.

Where necessary, our programs used translation services to ensure that benefits were available to people from non-English speaking backgrounds. To assist groups with their applications, the Australian Government Envirofund and the Community Water Grants Program provided a call centre and access to a translation service, staff to assist with applications for callers with disabilities, and access for people with poor or no internet access.

We consulted with diverse stakeholder groups about the development of policy, legislation and regulations, the implementation of programs, and the delivery of services. Examples included:

• consultations with the National Young Farmers Forum (an opportunity for more than a hundred young people to network, share ideas and discuss matters affecting their businesses, industries and communities)
• contributions to the Enhancing Opportunities report (information on barriers to and opportunities for increasing the participation of women and young people in portfolio sectors and the organisations that represent those sectors)
• contributions to the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation Study (information on opportunities to meet the leadership development needs of rural, regional and remote Australians).

Accountability

Accountability requires effective and transparent feedback, reporting and review mechanisms. Our work to improve accountability during 2007–08 included:

• jointly delivering the National Rural Women’s Summit (Canberra, June 2008) with the Office for Women and other Australian Government agencies
• establishing the Rural Industries Youth Advisory Group to develop policy options for issues affecting youth in rural industries and to provide youth perspectives on policies, programs and initiatives
• hosting the Young Australian Rural Network (YARN) website, which includes online forums for young people in portfolio industries.

We responded to concerns raised by clients to improve our performance. For example, we used the Advancing Agricultural Industries Advisory Panel to clarify roles and responsibilities in Action Grant projects and ensure industry ownership of project outcomes.

In support of the Australian Government’s policy on removing ‘anti-advocacy’ clauses that prevent non-government organisations advocating on behalf of their clients or members, we revised the department’s standard contract templates to include a clause clarifying that there are no restraints on advocacy by people or organisations receiving funding from the department.

Leadership

The leadership performance area assesses our whole-of-government management of issues arising from Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse society.

We collaborated with other Australian Government agencies on the National Rural Women’s Summit (see above) and on the Heywire initiative, which we co-sponsored with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Heywire supports young rural people (16–22 years old) to develop their advocacy skills, share their stories, and gain an insight into how government works.

• We worked with state, territory and local governments, non-government and community organisations and contractors to raise their awareness of their responsibilities and to encourage improved responses to cultural diversity:
• The state-delivered component of the FarmBis program was directed by state planning groups comprising Australian and state government representatives and members from industry, training and rural community groups.
• The Women’s Advancement Initiative built the skills and confidence of women in portfolio industries to lead at the local, regional and national levels.
• AgFund projects supported producer groups at the regional level to manage industry change by improving information flow and business management, adopting innovation and developing leadership skills and networks.
• Our Indigenous Aquaculture Unit, established in 2003, continued to work with other Australian Government agencies, state and territory governments and aquaculture industry sectors to support aquaculture project proposals instigated by Indigenous people. So far, we have contributed $500,000 in support of 20 aquaculture projects with a total value of $4 million.

Back to contents

---

Internal and external scrutiny

The department’s activities are subject to scrutiny through our internal auditing processes and through parliamentary committees, courts, administrative tribunals, the ANAO, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner.

Internal scrutiny

Internal audit

The department’s internal audit function is systematic, disciplined and designed to make our risk management, control and governance more effective.

Our Audit Committee reviews and monitors the internal audit strategic and annual plans and their implementation. The committee also reviews audit findings and recommendations, and monitors management actions in response to recommendations.

Ernst & Young continued as our contracted internal audit service provider. The department’s annual internal audit work program was completed, providing the Audit Committee and departmental managers with assurance about current corporate, enterprise and operational risks to projects, information systems, programs, operations, departmental and administered finances, and administrative and logistic activities. The overall results demonstrated that departmental processes were operating effectively.

In addition to the annual audit program, the department’s internal auditors provided:
internal audit services for the Biosecurity Australia Audit Committee
assurance services for 10 management-initiated assurance tasks
consulting services on 10 systems under development.

Table 33 shows expenditure on internal audit for 2007–08 and the previous three years. The slight rise in expenditure in relation to contract cost reflects the increase in contract rates, rather than an increase in workload. Figure 17 compares the numbers and types of audits completed during the four years. The department has budgeted for an additional $0.24 million in internal audit costs in 2008–09, mainly to cover additional auditing in AQIS.

Table 33 Internal audit expenditure, 2004–05 to 2007–08 ($)
Expenditure	2004–05	2005–06	2006–07	2007–08
Internal audit services contract cost	718,000	718,901	830,000	857,000
Audit work program support cost	81,767	100,837	196,000	127,805
APS internal audit staff cost	330,284	234,023	254,000	263,904
Total internal audit cost	1,130,051	1,053,761	1,280,000	1,248,709

Internal review of cost recovery

The department reviewed all its cost-recovery activities during the year as part of the 2008–09 Budget process.

The review found that we had applied the Australian Government’s cost recovery policy appropriately and complied with the government’s Cost recovery guidelines 2005. In particular:

• activities did not over- or under-recover costs
• there is no cross-subsidisation between user groups
• charges had appropriate legal authority
• charging arrangements were cost effective and efficient
• the arrangements were made transparent to stakeholders through a variety of consultation mechanisms
• the recovery of costs was consistent with broader Australian Government policy.

We have identified a number of cases in which cost recovery impact statements are required, and have established an ongoing monitoring regime.

External scrutiny

The department is subject to scrutiny by the Auditor-General, parliamentary committees, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the courts, administrative tribunals, commissions of inquiry and the public (through freedom of information requests). Table 34 shows five-year trends for many of these.

Reports by the Auditor-General

During 2007–08, the Auditor-General tabled three major ANAO performance audits on our activities:

• ANAO Audit Report No. 6, Performance audit: Australia’s preparedness for a human influenza pandemic
• ANAO Audit Report No. 21, Performance audit: Regional delivery model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality
• ANAO Audit Report No. 26, Performance audit: Tasmanian forest industry development and assistance programs.

In early 2008, the ANAO began a performance audit of the administration of the Securing our Fishing Future structural adjustment package.

Australia’s preparedness for a human influenza pandemic

In September 2007, the ANAO tabled a performance audit of Australian arrangements for dealing with pandemic influenza. The report focused on this department and the Department of Health and Ageing.

Because human influenza pandemics arise from virus strains originally infecting animals, Australia’s strategy includes human health and animal health components. The audit assessed arrangements under AUSVETPLAN (the Australian Veterinary Emergency Plan) to deal with avian influenza, with a focus on practical elements of preparedness and response, and with particular emphasis on work resulting from Exercise Eleusis in 2005 and Exercise Cumpston in 2006.

Table 34 Trends in external complaints and scrutiny
	2002–03	2003–04	2004–05	2005–06	2006–07	2007–08
Complaints recorded by Ombudsman
Approaches received	11	9	6	19	12	86 a
Approaches investigated	12	9	5	3	1	38 a
Finding of defective administration	0	1	0	0	0	0
Formal reports to the minister under the Ombudsman Act 1976	0	0	0	0	0	0
Complaints recorded by Privacy Commissioner
Complaints received	0	0	0	0	1	0
Freedom of information requests
Received during the year	29	26	25	24	38	38
a The Ombudsman reported figures for AQIS and the rest of the department together for the first time in 2007–08. Figures for earlier years exclude AQIS. In 2007–08, 67 approaches and 33 investigations concerned AQIS.

In relation to the department and Animal Health Australia, the audit recommended that we review:

• the resources and processes applied to the maintenance of AUSVETPLAN so that it accurately reflects the latest disease, scientific and policy developments, in accordance with Recommendation 12 from the Exercise Eleusis Evaluation Report
• the AUSVETPLAN Summary Document regularly so that it reflects the current disease categories and whole-of-government emergency response framework
• the current form and content of AUSVETPLAN.

The department agreed to the recommendations, and has taken the following actions.

Our review of AUSVETPLAN has been completed, after delays caused by the equine influenza outbreak. We have given a discussion paper outlining key issues and recommendations to Animal Health Australia for formal comment before the paper is distributed more widely to other stakeholders.

The Animal Health Committee has agreed on a streamlined process to update AUSVETPLAN manuals, and is targeting manuals last updated before 2000 for review. Reviews will be categorised by the level of endorsement required. Minor technical changes will be approved by Animal Health Australia and updated on the website, those with more comprehensive technical changes that do not require policy changes or changes in financial commitments will be referred to the Animal Health Committee for endorsement, and all new manuals and those resulting in changes to financial commitments will be referred to the National Biosecurity Committee, the Primary Industries Standing Committee or the Primary Industries Ministerial Council.

The newly established National Biosecurity Committee replaced the Primary Industries Health Committee on 1 July 2008. The committee will consider a recommendation to establish a national working group with responsibility for developing a standard for documenting emergency response arrangements. This will lead to a nationally consistent approach and may lead to amendments to AUSVETPLAN.

The audit report is available on the ANAO’s website (www.anao.gov.au): ANAO Audit Report No. 6, Performance audit: Australia’s preparedness for a human influenza pandemic.

Regional delivery model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

In February 2008, the ANAO tabled a performance audit of the regional delivery model used for the National Action Plan and the Natural Heritage Trust, which were jointly administered by the department and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

The audit focused on:

• the implementation of the regional delivery arrangements
• governance and financial management for regional delivery
• monitoring, evaluation and reporting on the programs’ performance.

The report noted that there had been considerable improvement in administration since previous audits and recognised that administration was now well focused on significant risk areas.

However, the report identified areas where work is needed to strengthen overall administration, including:

• transparency and accountability for Australian Government funds managed by the states and territories
• the quality and measurability of targets in the regional plans
• improvement in the monitoring and evaluation framework.

The ANAO made four recommendations for action by the two departments:

• To strengthen the management of risks to program outcomes, give priority to documenting and disseminating information about the cost-effectiveness of NRM investments and lessons learned about benefits or unintended consequences.
• In developing bilateral agreements for successor or similar programs, clearly define the authority of the joint steering committees for releasing funds and managing accounts, and streamline payments to regional bodies based on performance requirements.
• Give greater priority to monitoring compliance with bilateral agreements and encouraging states and territories to provide audited financial statements to show that funds have been spent as intended, return unspent funds or offset them against future allocations, and disclose interest earned and its use.
• To enable accurate reporting of progress against outcomes, develop and implement a performance measurement framework that includes core performance indicators, business rules for collecting and collating performance data, guidance to regional bodies on the validation of NRM output data, and meaningful intermediate outcomes that can be used to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and other achievements.

The department agreed with the report’s four recommendations, and will take them into account in future arrangements for the regional delivery of natural resource management programs.
The audit report is available on the ANAO website (www.anao.gov.au): ANAO Audit Report No. 21, Performance audit: Regional delivery model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.

Tasmanian forest industry development and assistance programs

The ANAO carried out a performance audit of the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement Industry Development Program between October 2006 and February 2008. The report was tabled on 28 February 2008.

The audit made three recommendations to improve the administration of the programs:

• improve the standard of monitoring and evaluation of projects
• improve information in deeds of agreement to verify claims for payment against the grant
• develop operational guidelines for payment, acquittal and reporting of grants by recipients.

The department agreed with the recommendations and has taken action to address each one. This included:

• developing a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the major outcomes of the grants program
• improving the standard of verification documentation to be provided by grantees when claiming against their grants, and amending more recent deeds of agreement to be more specific about those requirements
• updating operational guidelines and consulting grantees about the payment of grants and associated reporting requirements.

The audit report is available on the ANAO’s website (www.anao.gov.au): ANAO Audit Report No. 26, Performance audit: Tasmanian forest industry development and assistance programs.

Further response to 2006–07 audit of AQIS export certification

In Audit Report No. 2 of 2006–07, Performance audit: Export certification—Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, the ANAO identified opportunities for AQIS to improve its administration of export certification by:

• improving guidance to industry on the requirements for registration and licensing
• assuring audit quality and reliability
• better management reporting and performance information.

AQIS agreed with the report’s recommendations, and made progress in 2007–08 in implementing them by:

• improving guidance to industry and working to ensure continuous improvement
• developing systems to improve the capture, analysis and management of audit findings (capital investments in information technology planned for 2008–09 will enhance these systems)
• improving record-keeping systems and the management of performance information (verification activities will assess ongoing compliance with record-keeping requirements).

Audit of Securing our Fishing Future

In early 2008, the ANAO began a performance audit of the $220 million Securing our Fishing Future structural adjustment package for the Australian fishing industry. Securing our Fishing Future was announced in November 2005 in response to concerns about the state of Australia’s fish stocks and the sustainability and profitability of the industry. The centrepiece was a $149 million one-off voluntary tender process to allow fishing businesses to leave the industry. Other components included measures to help onshore fishing-related businesses and fishing communities.

The audit is examining the effectiveness of the department’s implementation and administration of the package. The ANAO expects to table the audit report in the Autumn 2009 parliamentary sittings.

Equine Influenza Inquiry

On 25 September 2007, the Hon. Mr Ian Callinan AC was appointed as a commissioner under the Quarantine Act 1908 to conduct an independent inquiry into the August 2007 equine influenza outbreak.
Commissioner Callinan delivered his report, which contained 38 recommendations, to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by the due date (25 April 2008).

On 12 June 2008, released the report along with the government’s response, in which the government accepted all 38 recommendations.

For full details of the inquiry, including the department’s role, see ‘Special report: Equine Influenza Inquiry’ on page 7. For details of our implementation of its recommendations, see ‘Quarantine and biosecurity strengthened after equine influenza outbreak’ on page 144.

Quarantine and Biosecurity Review

On 19 February 2008, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announced a comprehensive, independent review of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity systems. The review is chaired by Roger Beale AO, who is assisted by three other panel members. We are providing secretariat services to the review.

The Quarantine and Biosecurity Review will assess the operations of AQIS and Biosecurity Australia, and provide recommendations on current systems; public communication, consultation and research; the adequacy of resourcing; and governance and institutional arrangements.

The review will provide a final report, including recommendations, to the minister by 30 September 2008.

For more details about the review, see ‘Quarantine and Biosecurity Review’ on page 155.

Inquiries by parliamentary committees

During 2007–08, seven new parliamentary committee inquiries relevant to the portfolio commenced. The department has made or will make submissions to all seven.

Full details of the terms of reference for the inquiries are available on the Australian Parliament House website (www.aph.gov.au/committee/index.htm).

• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee: Inquiry into climate change and the Australian agricultural sector—established on 19 September 2007, to report by 4 September 2008

The committee is examining the scientific evidence available on the likely future climate of Australia’s most important agricultural production zones; its implications for current farm enterprises and possible future industries; the need for a national adaptation strategy; and the adequacy of existing drought assistance and Exceptional Circumstances programs to cope with long-term climate changes.

• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee: Inquiry into meat marketing—established on 19 March 2008, to report by 4 September 2008

The inquiry is focusing on the need for effective supervision of national standards and controls and the national harmonisation of regulations applying to the branding and marketing of meat.

• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee: Inquiry into natural resource management and conservation challenges—established on 26 June 2008, to report by 27 November 2008

The committee is inquiring into the lessons learned from the successes and failures of three decades of Australian Government investment in resource management, including through Landcare, the National Heritage Trust, the National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality, and other national programs.

• Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries: Inquiry into pricing and supply arrangements in the Australian and global fertiliser market—established on 14 February 2008, to report by 16 October 2008

The committee is examining the implications for Australian farmers of the domestic and international pricing and supply arrangements for fertilisers.

• Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries: Inquiry into food production in Australia—established on 25 June 2008, to report by 27 November 2009

The committee’s inquiry is focusing on how to produce food that is affordable to consumers and viable for production by farmers, with sustainable impacts on the environment.

• Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy—established on 25 June 2008, to report by 21 October 2009

The committee is exploring the impacts and potential impacts on Australian families, businesses, industry sectors and communities of higher fuel prices and the operation of domestic fuel markets. It is also examining existing regulatory powers, taxation arrangements (including incentives), government regulations, public transport investment, and Australian refining and exploration activities.

• House Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation: Inquiry into research training and research workforce issues in Australian universities—established on 23 April 2008

The standing committee is examining the contribution of Australian universities to research in Australia and the challenges they face in training, recruiting and retaining high-quality research graduates and staff.

Parliamentary committee inquiry reports awaiting responses

At 30 June 2008, 11 parliamentary committee inquiry reports awaited responses from the Australian Government:

• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee: Iraqi wheat debt—repayments for wheat growers
• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee: Inquiry into the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee: An appropriate level of protection? The importation of salmon products: a case study of the administration of Australian quarantine and the impact of international trade arrangements
• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee: Biosecurity Australia’s import risk analysis for pig meat
• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee: Administration of Biosecurity Australia—Revised draft import risk assessment for apples from New Zealand
• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee: Administration of Biosecurity Australia—Revised draft import risk analysis for bananas from the Philippines
• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and transport Legislation Committee: The administration by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of the citrus canker outbreak
• Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee: Living with salinity—a report on progress: the extent and economic impact of salinity in Australia
• House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Taking control: a national approach to pest animals.
• House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Skills: rural Australia’s need
• House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources: More than honey—the future of the Australian honey bee and pollination industries

Complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other bodies

The department advises clients not satisfied with how we handled their complaint that they are entitled to contact the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

In 2007–08, the Ombudsman received 86 approaches in relation to the department, and decided to investigate 38. These related mainly to eligibility requirements for equine influenza assistance schemes and business assistance grants, and AQIS inspection and certification. One related to an administrative error and another to the handling of a Compensation for Detriment Caused by Defective Administration claim.

Compared with the previous year, this was a significant increase in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman and a commensurate increase in the number of complaints investigated (see Figure 18).

The increase highlighted a discrepancy between the number of cases recorded by the Ombudsman and the department. Further investigation revealed that the Ombudsman’s Office had previously not included AQIS matters in the total number of reported departmental cases. The increased number of inquiries for 2007–08 may be an artefact of this error in reporting.

The Ombudsman’s Office closed 30 inquiries relating to the department during the year and made no finding of defective administration.

Our clients may also have rights of complaint to the Federal Privacy Commissioner. In 2006–07, the commissioner asked us to supply information about a complaint, made in 2004, claiming unauthorised disclosure of personal information to a third party. We supplied the requested information. The matter is still under investigation. No new complaints were received during 2007–08.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions

Sampak and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2006)

This matter was an application for review by the tribunal of a decision made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The documents sought by the FOI applicant related to Sampak’s business affairs. Sampak appealed on the basis that the release of the documents would adversely affect its business. In August 2007, the tribunal upheld the department’s decision in relation to the FOI request.

World Wildlife Fund and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2006)

This matter was also an application for review of a decision under the FOI Act. The applicant, the World Wildlife Fund, was dissatisfied with our decision to deny access to confidential information, comprising surveys by ABARE. This matter was resolved outside the tribunal and the appeal was subsequently withdrawn.

Animals Australia, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2008) and undisclosed third party

This matter relates to a decision made by the department under the FOI Act. Animals Australia applied to be joined to Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings initiated by the third party to the FOI request. The third party appealed on the basis that the release of the documents would adversely affect its business. Animals Australia requested to be joined to the proceedings as the entity seeking access to the documents under the FOI Act. A hearing has been set for 25 October 2008.

Animals Australia and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2008)

Animals Australia lodged an appeal for review of the department’s decision in relation to a second FOI matter. Animals Australia is contesting the decision to exempt material from release under the provisions of the FOI Act. All relevant statements have been filed and a hearing date is to be scheduled between September and November 2008.

Undisclosed applicant and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2008)

This matter relates to a decision made by the department on the imposition of charges in relation to a request for documents under the FOI Act. The applicant is a current employee of the department seeking information about an investigation (of the applicant) for a possible breach of the Code of Conduct.

Freedom of information

We make departmental records available to stakeholders as required under the Freedom of Information Act. Most of our activities and records relate to business rather than personal matters.
There were 38 new requests for information in 2007–08, which was the same number received in 2006–07, compared with 24 in 2005–06. Requests continued to be for business rather than personal information. In addition to the 38 received, a further 13 unresolved requests were carried over from the previous year.

We resolved most requests within the statutory timeframe or within revised timeframes agreed with applicants.

We continued to contribute to a detailed annual report, published by the Attorney-General’s Department, on the operation of the FOI Act.

See Appendix 5 for our report on freedom of information, required under section 8 of the Act.

Claims for compensation for detriment caused by defective administration

During 2007–08, two claims were investigated in accordance with Department of Finance and Administration’s Finance Circular No. 2006/05 Discretionary Compensation Schemes: Attachment A Compensation for detriment caused by defective administration (CDDA). AQIS inspection and certification processes were the issue with these claims. The department advises claimants who are not satisfied with the outcome of their claims to contact the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

We reached a decision on the first claim and provided an offer of compensation, which the claimant accepted. The matter is now closed. The second claim is being considered by the department.

Act of grace payments

During 2007–08, we advised the Department of Finance and Deregulation on two claims in accordance with the former Department of Finance and Administration’s Finance Circular No. 2006/05 Discretionary Compensation Schemes: Attachment B Act of Grace Payment. A third claim is under consideration. Details of any payments made are included in the financial statements section of this annual report.

Back to contents

---

Reviews and evaluations

The department’s programs and administration are subject to reviews and≈evaluations at various levels, ranging from internal reviews to performance and financial auditing by the ANAO. We amend our practices and program delivery in response to the findings.

This section outlines significant reviews by consultants or agencies other than theANAO completed during 2007–08, underway at the time of publication, or planned for 2008–09.

ANAO audits, judicial inquiries, commissions of inquiry and inquiries by parliamentary committees are reported in the ‘External scrutiny’ section of this report.

No formal evaluations of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics were completed, begun or in≈progress during 2007–08.

Completed

Output 1: Pathways to Industry EMS Program final review

The final review of the Pathways to Industry Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Program was completed by Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd in October 2007. It assessed the program against outcomes and objectives, including the potential value of and constraints to EMS in agriculture.

The report of the review includes a discussion on the changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes and aspirations for EMS among the Pathways project participants. Italso highlights some outstanding examples of content development, such as tools, guidelines, best management practice and training materials, including:

• guidelines for environmental assurance in horticulture, trialled by over 190 producers
• the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia’s innovative reference tool, System map of international and national wine industry’s environmental programs and activities
• nine significant EMS guidelines in the Seafood EMS Resources Kit.

The final review included an evaluation of the program. Important observations included the following:

• EMS is not a ‘silver bullet’, with which a solution can be efficiently and effectively rolled out across agricultural industries to the satisfaction of producers and markets alike.
• Most drivers for EMS are still relatively weak.
• The Australian Government needs to better articulate desired NRM outcomes (by asset, issue, location or sector) in consultation with industry.

The observations from the final review were part of the department’s broader evaluation of industry-focused NRM programs. That evaluation informed the development of the Caring for our Country Sustainable Farm Practices theme, which aims to help industry target and monitor priority practices, rather than all on‑farm practices.

Output 2: Rural Financial Counselling Service performance audit and client survey

During 2007, WalterTurnbull conducted performance audits of the 16 service providers delivering the Rural Financial Counselling Service program. The audits assessed the extent to which service providers were complying with program requirements and whether new delivery arrangements implemented in 2006 had improved their governance, accountability and risk management practices.

The report found that, 12 months after the new arrangements were put in place, most service providers:

• were performing at a medium to high level on the whole
• had moved to the required corporate governance structure
• were in a position to increase focus on strategic and business planning.

The review also found that service providers were in a position to develop more structured, measurable and documented processes for monitoring performance at the rural financial counsellor, executive officer and organisational levels.

In response to the review’s findings, the Office of Rural Financial Counselling distributed a letter and action plan matrix to the board of each service provider for their response. The action plans were followed up at a workshop for service providers held in February 2008, where they collaborated to develop cohesive responses for implementation by October 2008.

The Office of Rural Financial Counselling had intended to conduct a survey of client satisfaction in 2007 with the assistance of ABARE (as noted in our 2006–07 annual report). However, the office decided to postpone the survey to reconsider the methodology and objectives in the light of the government’s new climate change adaptation and adjustment programs. In late 2008, the office will call for tenders so a revised survey can be conducted in early 2009.

Output 3: Produce and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct review

In its July 2004 response to the report of the Review of the Retail Grocery Industry Code of Conduct (the Buck Report), the Australian Government agreed that the code should be reviewed in three years time.

The review was undertaken by Garland Outcomes Pty Ltd, which submitted its report in November 2007.

The key recommendations were:

• the Administration Committee should take on greater responsibility for managing the code
• the government should cease to provide secretariat services within three years
• the government should review funding for the dispute resolution service in three years.

The government will consider the report’s recommendations in conjunction with the report of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on the effectiveness of the Horticulture Code of

Conduct. The commission evaluated the horticulture code as part of its inquiry into grocery prices, and reported on 31 July 2008.

Output 3: Evaluation of the Food Processing in Regional Australia Program

From July 2007 to April 2008, Andrew Gavel Pty Ltd reviewed the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Food Processing in Regional Australia program.

The review found that the great majority of program projects had increased linkages along supply chains, improved grantees’ ability to manage marketing, helped to increase the number of value-added food products entering the market, and delivered other economic and social benefits through tourism and regional development. The review also found that the program’s grant selection process and administrative mechanisms were appropriate and effective.

The report’s main recommendations were as follows:

• Program performance indicators should be amended to exclude engagement with financial providers to access business funding and attract investment, and to account for the high social benefits of the program and to accommodate varied regional and industry arrangements.
• Applicants should be required to:
  – submit an initial expression of interest, followed by a business plan with additional financial and company data
  – contact the program to clarify their potential project, and to get the name of a regional or industry contact
  – identify their past commitment to the region through community work, sponsorship or historical connections.
• The program should supply training for potential applicants, facilitated through regional contacts who identify regional businesses that are eligible for funding.
• All successful applicants should be named at a predetermined date, and unsuccessful applicants should be given feedback.
• The program’s advisory group should be given precise guidelines to help rank projects for funding.
  

The program closed on 30 June 2008, and the review’s main findings and recommendations have been incorporated into the design and implementation of the department’s new Regional Food Producers Innovation and Productivity Program.

Output 4: 2008 Dairy Quota Review

From March to June 2008, the Dairy Quota Review Panel conducted a formal review of European Union and United States dairy quota arrangements after three years operation of the Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement quota regime. The review examined the principles underpinning the quota controls, the quota allocation process and the ongoing administration of the quotas.

The report, entitled Report of the 2008 Dairy Quota Review Panel on administrative arrangements for EU and USA dairy quotas managed by Australia, has not yet been made public.

Output 5: Securing the Future Program review

In December 2007, the department completed an internal review of the Securing the Future program (which ended on 30 June 2008), to determine the need for a replacement program.

The review found that the program achieved its objectives of raising biosecurity awareness, protecting critical infrastructure, meeting international obligations for chemical use and enhancing national capacity and capability in Australian animal and plant health systems.

The review recommended that:

• resources continue to be provided to support the policy leadership role of our Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health Division (PIAPH)
• a future biosecurity-related budget initiative should contain specific funding for research as part of a biosecurity research strategy developed and managed by PIAPH
• resources be provided:
  – to build capacity for regional sustainability
  – to support priority projects identified in endorsed strategic plans and frameworks
  – for a national, field-based training program
  – to address five health components (critical infrastructure; animal health; plant health; research; and communication and awareness)
  – to develop a communication strategy to inform all stakeholders about the purpose of the initiative, why it is important, and what will be achieved.

The report of the review (Securing the Future: Protecting our industries from biological, chemical and physical risk. Evaluation report) was presented to the Primary Industries Standing Committee and is available on request from the Product Integrity, Animal and Plant Health Division program management team.

An extension of Securing the Future funds for 2008–09 incorporates some aspects of the review’s findings. A new, longer term policy proposal will be developed during 2008–09, taking into account this review and the findings of the broader Review of Quarantine and Biosecurity (the Beale Review), expected to be completed in September 2008.

Output 5: Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Freedom Assurance Program review

Animal Health Australia completed a scheduled three‑year review of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Freedom Assurance Program in July 2007. The review focused on program effectiveness, efficiency and achievement of goals. The final report was provided to stakeholders, but not publicly released.

Animal Health Australia concluded that all program activities were highly relevant and effective, and that the program has been conducted efficiently, with close cooperation between industry and government agencies.

The main recommendations were for minor improvements in the areas of communication, auditing of controls over the feeding of ruminant animals, and aligning surveillance with recent revisions to World Organisation for Animal Health guidelines.

As a consequence of the review, Animal Health Australia has developed a program business plan, and stakeholders have been asked to commit to the program for another five years.

Output 5: Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement review

A five‑yearly review of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA) was completed in July 2007 by Bioassure Pty Ltd for Animal Health Australia. EADRA is the national arrangement between governments and industry for managing responses and sharing their costs.

The review made 28 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the agreement process and to address operational concerns raised by some industries. All members of Animal Health Australia are considering a discussion paper containing the recommendations, and two workshops have been held to work through the consultant’s findings.

Output 5: National Fruit Fly and Asian Gypsy Moth Trapping Program audit

The Office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer completed an internal audit of the National Fruit Fly and Asian Gypsy Moth Trapping Program in 2007. The program is co‑funded by the Australian, state and territory governments. The audit considered operational aspects of trap placement and clearance, with the aim of providing recommendations on more effective operation of the program.

The audit found that contracts had become inconsistent between jurisdictions, leading to differing expectations, and that it was not possible to measure operational compliance of the program because the contracts did not contain enough detail to audit against. Because of the lack of auditable procedures, the audit became an informal review. Jurisdictions were informed of the need to comply with standards and procedures in the future.

Contracts have been rewritten to:

• ensure consistent contracts for all states and territories
• provide guidance on expectations for the implementation of the trapping programs
• reference relevant standards and procedures, such as the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and the Queensland Fruit Fly Code of Practice, to allow effective auditing of the program.

Output 5: Review of the Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostic Standards

Kalang Consultancy Services completed an independent review of the Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostic Standards during the year. The subcommittee aims to sustain and improve the quality and reliability of diagnostics for emergency plant pests throughout Australia.

The review examined the subcommittee’s roles, activities, performance and value, and recommended:

• retention of a national, cost-shared, executive officer position basis
• a comprehensive diagnostics stocktake
• better promotion of the value of diagnostic services to stakeholders
• risk-based prioritisation of emergency plant pests
• a benefit–cost analysis and the development of a strong business case to support a national diagnostic strategy
• national accreditation of laboratories, proficiency testing and the designation of national reference laboratories after the endorsement of the national diagnostic strategy.

The consultant’s report (Independent review of the Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostic Standards) was presented to the Plant Health Committee for consideration, but is not yet publicly available.

Output 7: Review of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis

The Allen Consulting Group evaluated the effectiveness of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis (ACERA) after ACERA’s first two years of operation, and reported in April 2008. The consultant’s report (Evaluation of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis) was provided for senior departmental officers’ consideration and has not yet been published.

The report found that ACERA has performed well and has adequately addressed the department’s stated priorities. The consultant recommended that funding for the organisation be ongoing, and that the relationship between the steering committee, departmental divisions and ACERA be improved through greater interaction.

As a result, the steering committee has been restructured and given a stronger role in the development of work plans. We are actively promoting ACERA and its work to the department’s divisions, creating an awareness of the potential benefits to each of them.

In progress

Output 1: Evaluation of Defeating the Weed Menace program

In September 2007, the department commissioned a review of the achievements and performance of the Defeating the Weed Menace Program for the period from 2004–05 to 2007–08. The review, which was completed in May 2008, was conducted by ABARE.

A draft report of the review has been provided and is expected to be finalised early in the 2008–09 financial year. Findings from the review will be considered in the future development of policy direction on invasive plant species.

Output 1: Native Vegetation Regional Pilot Projects evaluation

The Bureau of Rural Sciences is monitoring and evaluating outcomes from the $2 million Native Vegetation Regional Pilot Projects program under the Natural Heritage Trust. This review was expected to be completed by June 2008, but will now be finalised in early 2009 after all the pilot projects have been completed.
We expect the review’s findings and recommendations to help inform future national programs for improving the management of Australia’s natural resources.

Output 1: National Agriculture and Climate Change Action Plan 2006–2009 mid‑term review

In January 2008, the department began a mid‑term review of the National Agriculture and Climate Change Action Plan 2006–2009. The review assessed the effectiveness of the action plan in generating specific actions to address thexchallenges of climate change. This in‑house desktop study incorporated the views of stakeholders (members of the Climate Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Working Group and other research organisations). The draft report was prepared by August 2008. After it is finalised, it will be considered by the NRM Ministerial Council.

Output 1: Review/evaluation of EMS Pathways to Sustainable Agriculture Program

The EMS (Environmental Management Systems) Pathways to Sustainable Agriculture Program was developed in February 2007 to facilitate partnerships with industry, regions and research organisations to increase the adoption of self‑sustaining, profitable and sustainable farming practices; enhance sustainable agriculture and environmental outcomes; and enable producers to demonstrate environmental credentials to domestic and international markets.

A final review of the program is being conducted by the program managers, Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd, and is expected to be completed in September 2008. It will analyse the success of the program in achieving its objectives and also include final reports for each individual EMS Pathways project.

Preliminary findings indicate that the program, which engaged 15 industry bodies and 8 NRM regional bodies across Australia, has achieved its objectives by strengthening their capacity to implement EMS approaches. The findings indicate that the EMS approach has provided a point of commonality between organisations, assisting the growth of partnerships and shared capacity, and hasxalso provided a strong foundation for responding to emerging pressures and opportunities. However, EMS is seen as one of a suite of approaches that can be used to promote the adoption of sustainable and profitable practices atfarm level, and the adoption of a particular practice will be influenced by specific drivers and barriers.

The observations from the final report will be considered when developing future industry programs under Caring for our Country.

Output 2: Farm Help longitudinal study

The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies is conducting a five‑year (2004 to 2008) longitudinal study involving surveys of farmers and former farmers who have participated in Farm Help. The aim is to measure medium to longer term outcomes. The fifth and final wave of the survey is scheduled to be completed in September–October 2008.

The fourth wave was completed in October 2007. Its findings were consistent with previous years, showing that Farm Help had helped farmers take action to improve their long‑term financial situation.

The survey identified Pathways Planning as being likely to improve farmers’ financial performance, and found that respondents rated professional advice highly and considered training to be extremely useful.

Some 89% of farmers who exited Farm Help between October 2005 and July 2006 agreed they had derived long‑term benefits from the program. Farmers whose financial position had not improved overwhelmingly blamed drought for their situation.

Report recommendations from each wave of the longitudinal study are used in planning and in the development of other grants programs, such as the Climate Change Adjustment Program.

The results of the study to date are available on our website.

Output 2: Centrelink Exceptional Circumstances procedures compliance audit

A departmental audit of Centrelink EC assessment and payment procedures was initiated in late 2007. The audit is focusing on the accuracy of decisions about eligibility. On completion of the audit, a full analysis and written report will be provided to the department and to Centrelink.

Output 3: Assessment of the Commonwealth fisheries merits review systems

In August 2007, Minter Ellison Lawyers began a review examining the efficacy and efficiency of mechanisms for fishing operators to appeal the merits of administrative decisions made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and subordinate legislation. The main decisions subject to review are those set out in section 165(1) of the Act and decisions to make a provisional allocation of statutory fishing rights other than by way of auction or tender under section 23.

The review involved an extensive literature review, interviews with and input from government stakeholders, detailed fisheries case analysis, and an examination of alternative merits review models.

The review was finalised in June 2008. It will be released to stakeholders for review and comments before final recommendations are presented to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for his consideration.

The findings will inform the evaluation of merits review processes for fisheries allocation decisions made under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984.

Output 3: Evaluation of the Sugar Industry Reform Program 2004

A review to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Sugar Industry Reform Program 2004 was initiated in April 2008. The evaluation, by BRS, is expected to be complete by December 2008.

The audience for the evaluation report will be Australian and state government agencies, research organisations and industry stakeholders.

The results will aid the future policy development of similar programs by helping the department to clarify program objectives and make program delivery more efficient.

Output 6: Review/evaluation of Quarantine Matters! Phase III advertising activity

The department has commissioned Open Mind Research to conduct market tracking research of awareness, attitudes and behaviours in relation to quarantine among the specified target audiences of the Quarantine Matters! Big Bugs advertising campaign.

The research will begin in October 2008 and take two months. The report to the AQIS Executive will indicate whether AQIS could make the campaign more effective and how that might be done.

Output 6: Review/evaluation of Export Control (Fees) Orders 2001

In consultation with industry, the AQIS Horticulture Export Program is reviewing the Export Control (Fees) Orders 2001, which underpin the charging structure and rates for inspections and export certification services for the program.

The review began in March 2008 and is expected to be completed by March 2009. The expected audience for the report is the horticulture industry.

Biosecurity Australia: Review/evaluation of import risk analysis reforms

The department’s Internal Audit team will review Biosecurity Australia’s implementation of the import risk analysis reforms introduced in September 2007 (see Biosecurity Australia’s report on performance). The review is expected to be completed in September 2008.

Cancelled

Output 2: Current drought programs policy effectiveness review

The Australian, state and territory governments began reviewing all drought assistance measures in late 2006–07 (as stated in our 2006–07 annual report). However, the process was aborted on the announcement of a comprehensive national review of drought policy by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on 23 April 2008.

Output 2: FarmBis longitudinal study

A longitudinal study of FarmBis participants to trace the ‘continuous learning and training’ culture of FarmBis among program participants and its impact on business sustainability, competitiveness and profitability was due to commence in 2007–08. However, following the closure of the FarmBis program on 30 June 2008, the review was cancelled.

Planned

Output 3: Review of appeals mechanisms under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984

The department will commission an independent evaluation of the merits review processes for fisheries allocation decisions under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. This is an extension of the similar review undertaken for the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (see ‘In progress, Assessment of the Commonwealth fisheries merits review systems’ above), and will take the findings of that review into account.

We expect the review to be finalised by June 2009, after which it will be presented to the Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority for consideration.

Output 5: Review/evaluation of pink transaction tags for the sheep industry

In July 2008, a small working group drawn from industry and the Australian and state governments began a study to investigate whether pink transaction tags, as used in Western Australia, might have a wider application across the Australian sheep and goat industry to track the movement of individual animals. The study will focus on National Vendor Declaration compliance.

The working group will develop a paper for consideration by industry and government, for submission to the Primary Industry Standing Committee by February 2009.

Output 5: Review/evaluation of SPS Capacity Building Program

The department manages the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Capacity Building Program on behalf of the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). The program builds the capacity of Association of South‑East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries to meet international SPS standards.

The program underwent an independent, external, ‘mid‑term’ review during March, April and May 2008. The final report of that review, conducted by Project Design and Management Pty Ltd (Canberra) and Mr Cornelius van der Meer (Washington DC, formerly of the World Bank) was submitted to AusAID before 30 June 2008.

During 2008–09, the department’s program management team will perform an internal evaluation of the impact of the program’s three years of activities. The evaluation will be followed during the first half of 2009 by a final external review of the program’s impacts and cost-effectiveness, to be commissioned by AusAID.

Output 5: Review of the strategic objectives for Australia’s participation in Codex

In August 2008, the Australian Government Codex Policy Committee, in consultation with Codex Australia stakeholders, began a review to confirm or clarify the objectives and strategies required to promote a coherent national approach to Australia’s participation in the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary bodies.

The aim is to ensure that Australia’s participation delivers better domestic food safety and public health policies and increases opportunities for Australian agricultural and food industries, particularly in trade.
The review is expected to be finalised by June 2009. The audience for the findings will include Australian national and state food and agriculture agencies, relevant industries and Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

Back to contents

---

Financial performance summary

The department

The department received $647.30 million in revenue in 2007–08, an increase of $26.43 million over 2006–07. After including increased expenses associated with a range of activities, particularly drought support, quarantine and equine influenza, and costs of the move to new accommodation, the department generated an operating surplus of $0.73 million (2006–07: deficit of $14.24 million). This surplus is equivalent to 0.2% of total departmental appropriation revenue.

The 2007–08 financial statements were signed by the Auditor-General without qualification or significant finding. This outstanding result reflects the quality financial management framework in place, and the ANAO has congratulated the department on the outcome.

Table 35 shows the allocation of resources for each of the department’s outputs in 2007–08, administered expenses managed on behalf of the Australian Government, and the price of outputs.

Table 36 shows the allocation of resources in 2008–09 under the department’s new output structure, as detailed in the 2008–09 Portfolio Budget Statements.

The tables also provide information on the average staffing levels for 2007–08 and 2008–09.

Table 35 Price of outputs, the department, 2007–08
	Revised Budget a 2007–08 $’000	Actual 2007–08 $’000	Variation $’000
Administered expenses	3,135,069	2,820,346	(314,723)
Price of departmental outputs b
1 Natural resource access and management	39,987	43,742	3,755
2 Rural policy and innovation	82,206	73,991	-8,215
3 Industry development	39,029	45,036	6,007
4 International food and agriculture service	35,941	36,718	777
5 Product integrity, animal and plant health	36,675	40,609	3,934
6 Quarantine and export services	378,820	380,149	1,329
7 Scientific advice	12,288	11,078	-1,210
8 Economic research	13,307	13,803	496
Total price for Outcome 1	638,253	645,126	6,873
Average staffing level (number)	4,345	4,348	3
a Taken from 2007–08 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements. b Based on total departmental revenue.

Table 36 Price of outputs, the department, 2008–09
	Budget 2008–09 $’000
Administered expenses	1,978,921
Price of departmental outputs a
1 Sustainable Management of Resources	45,440
2 Productive, Innovative and Competitive Portfolio Industries	53,728
3 Access to Markets	155,930
4 Managing Pest and Disease Risk	295,429
5 Portfolio Research Support	59,268
Total price for Outcome 1	609,795
Average staffing level (number)	4,415
a Taken from 2008–09 Portfolio Budget Statements.

Biosecurity Australia

Biosecurity Australia generated an operating surplus of $0.09 million in 2007–08 (2006–07: surplus of $0.33 million), which represented 0.4% of agency appropriation revenue. The surplus was mainly attributable to the impact of the valuation of long service leave liabilities.

The solvency of the agency remained sound, with a reported current ratio of 1.5 in 2007–08 (1.5 in 2006–07).

The 2007–08 financial statements were signed by the Auditor-General without qualification. The results of the audit again reflected the sound financial management framework in place in Biosecurity Australia.

Table 37 shows the price of departmental outputs and average staffing levels for 2007–08.

Table 37 Price of output, Biosecurity Australia, 2007–08
	Budget a 2007–08 $’000	Actual 2007–08 $’000	Variation $’000	Budget b 2008–09 $’000
Price of departmental output	21,334	21,218	116	20,843
Average staffing level (number)	132	131	1	132
a Budgeted figures from Table 3.2.1 of Portfolio Budget Statements 2007–08. b Taken from 2008–09 Portfolio Budget Statements.

Back to contents

---

Purchasing

Our divisions are responsible for their own purchasing, but are subject to a Chief Executive Instruction on procurement that complements the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.

The procurement Chief Executive Instruction sets three thresholds for purchases:

• Purchases worth less than $10,000 do not require competitive quotes.
• Purchases from $10,000 to $79,999 can be made, as appropriate, through the department’s corporate contracts, through the Central Advertising System, or by using the department’s purchasing procedures to source the market.
• Purchases of $80,000 or more are subject to public tender, but exemptions may be approved in some circumstances.

Those involved in purchasing use a checklist to ensure that they consider all necessary factors, including scoping, specification development, advertising and evaluation of tenders, contract preparation and monitoring.

We publish our annual procurement plan on AusTender by 1 July each year to draw businesses’ attention to opportunities. The plan contains a short strategic procurement outlook for the department, supported by details such as the subjects of planned procurements and the estimated publication dates of requests for tender.

Back to contents

---

External service providers

In 2007–08, the department continued to contract consultants and other non‑government service providers to supply goods or services. This section provides an overview of our use of consultants, along with information required by law about exempt and other contracts.

Consultants

In 2007–08, we hired consultants where specialised or professional skills were not available in the department or where we identified a need for independent research or assessment. Chief Executive Instruction 4 on procurement contains procedures and guidelines for engaging consultants. Each proposal for a consultancy must specify the project requirements, justify the use of a consultant, identify the expected costs, recommend a procurement method and explain how the consultant’s performance will be evaluated and monitored.

In line with the principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, the department engages consultants based on:

• value for money
• open and effective competition
• ethics and fair dealing
• accountability and reporting
• national competitiveness and industry development
• support for other Australian Government policies.

Consultancy services are a particular type of service delivered under a contract for services, distinguished from other contracts by the nature of the work performed. A consultant is an entity (individual, partnership or corporation) engaged to provide professional, independent and expert advice or services. A consultant usually brings expert professional skills to investigate or diagnose a defined issue or problem; to carry out defined research, reviews or evaluations; or to provide independent advice, information or creative solutions to aid management decision‑making.

During 2007–08, we entered into 239 new consultancy contracts, with a value of $19,699,870. Total actual expenditure on new consultancies was $10,930,491. In addition, 143 ongoing consultancies involved total actual expenditure of $2,886,253.

Table 38 shows the number and value of consultancies with a value greater than $10,000, and total expenditure on consultancies, for 2007–08 and the two previous years. Table 39 shows why it was necessary to use consultancies.

Table 38 Consultancies: number, value and total expenditure, 2005–06 to 2007–08
	2005–06	2006–07	2007–08
No. of consultancies with a value greater than $10 000 let during the year	230	209	239
Total value of consultancies with a value greater than $10 000 let during the year	$16,661,001	$13,529,473	$19,699,870
Actual expenditure on new and ongoing consultancies during the year	$16,198,777	$11,213,649	$13,816,744

The increase in total value of new consultancies was mainly due to major BRS projects in the Murray–Darling Basin (see Output 7, Scientific advice).

During the year, the department continued contracts with a panel of legal services providers, comprising the Australian Government Solicitor, Minter Ellison and Sparke Helmore, which was formed on 1 February 2006. Although these contracts may include a variety of consultancy engagements, they are subsets of an overarching contract, and have not been separately identified or included in the numbers reported.

Table 39 Consultancies: reasons for use, 2007–08
Reason	No.
Skills currently unavailable within the agency	8
Need for specialised or professional skills	200
Need for independent research or assessment	31
Total	239

Details of consultancy contracts over $10 000 (including GST) let during the year are available on the department’s website (www.daff.gov.au/annualreport).

Other contract information

This section contains information that we are required by law to publish in our annual report.

Exempt contracts

No contracts let during 2007–08 were exempted by the secretary from being published on AusTender on the basis that publication would disclose exempt matters under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Access by the Auditor-General

All contracts valued at $100,000 or more (inclusive of GST) let during 2007–08 provided for the Auditor-General to have access to the contractor’s premises.

Further information

Further information about expenditure on contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website (http://www.tenders.gov.au).

Back to contents

---

Purchaser–provider arrangements

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

Administration of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

The department has a cross‑portfolio arrangement with the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) for the administration of the seven year, $1.4 billion National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (the National Action Plan). The two responsible ministers jointly determine policy and major funding allocations within the plan, and these are implemented by the Australian Government Natural Resource Management Team, a cross‑agency unit.

The department is responsible for financial management of the National Action Plan, and is jointly responsible for other aspects of administration. In 2007–08, we transferred $0.55 million to DEWHA to offset administrative expenses (2006–07: $0.87 million).

Performance in 2007–08 was measured against the indicators outlined in Table 4, Output 1 administered items, 2007–08. Performance for all measures was satisfactory.

Administration of the Natural Heritage Trust

The department has a cross‑portfolio arrangement with the DEWHA for the administration of the Natural Heritage Trust.

The Natural Heritage Ministerial Board, consisting of the two responsible ministers, is responsible for Trust administration through the Australian Government NRM Team. DEWHA is responsible for financial management. In 2007–08, DEWHA transferred $8.89 million to us for administrative costs (2006–07: $7.34 million).

As outlined in the DEWHA 2007–08 Portfolio Budget Statements, performance in 2007–08 was measured by:

• the number of investment strategies that were prepared and evaluated, and for which funding was agreed and specified in financial agreements
• the number of individuals/community groups supported through Australian Government Envirofund Grants
• whether investment strategies addressed nationally agreed NRM priorities to address identified NRM issues
• whether all investments approved by ministers were delivered through appropriate financial agreements and provided with funding in accordance with Trust accountability and acquittal procedures, to meet the Trust’s objectives
• whether monitoring and evaluation arrangements were in place for each level of the Trust, and reports showed progress against targets.

In 2007–08, performance for all measures was satisfactory.

Section 43 of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 requires the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to prepare an annual report on the Trust’s activities. The regional component of the Trust is delivered jointly with the National Action Plan. Accordingly, there are references to Trust activity in this annual report and in the DEWHA annual report. The full report on the Trust’s performance is in the Trust’s annual report, which is available on its website (www.nht.gov.au/publications/annual-reports/index.html).

Centrelink

Payments under various programs

The department has a purchaser–provider arrangement with Centrelink, which is a statutory authority responsible to Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Human Services.

Under the arrangement, Centrelink delivers payments for drought-related programs, such as EC Relief Payments and the Murray–Darling Irrigator Grant Package, Farm Help, the EC Exit Grant (from 25 September 2007), the Transitional Income Support program (from 16 June 2008), the Equine Influenza Assistance Measures, the Citrus Canker Assistance Package and the Sugar Industry Reform Program 2004.

Our Climate Change Division now manages the drought-related programs, Farm Help and Transitional Income Support programs and the Equine Influenza Assistance Package; the Agricultural Productivity Division manages the Citrus Canker Assistance Package and Sugar Industry Reform Programs.

A business partnership agreement between Centrelink and the department outlines the services to be delivered. In 2007–08, we purchased Centrelink services for about $31.78 million (2006–07: $20.05 million), made up of the following amounts, less a small efficiency dividend:

• drought-related programs—$24.62 million (2006–07: $14.94 million)
• Farm Help—$2.85 million (2006–07: $4.44 million)
• EC Exit Grant—$1.41 million (2006–07: nil—program began on 25 September 2007)
• Equine Influenza Assistance Measures—$2.27 million (2006–07: nil—program began on 9 September 2007)
• Sugar Industry Reform Program 2004—$0.03 million (2006–07: $0.19 million)
• Citrus Canker Assistance Package—$0.01 million (2006–07: $0.03 million)
• Transitional Income Support Program—$0.25 million (2006–07: nil—program began on 16 June 2008)
• Climate Change Adjustment Program—$0.34 million (2006–07: nil—program began in 2007–08).

Table 40 shows performance during the year under these arrangements for drought‑related programs, Farm Help and the EC Exit Grant which have specific performance measures. Payments under the Equine Influenza Assistance Measures and the sugar industry and citrus canker schemes were made to all those deemed eligible.

Table 40 Performance: drought relief and Farm Help, 2007–08
Key performance indicators	Target	Source	Result
Exceptional Circumstances relief payments
Determine the initial eligibility of the customer. Centrelink’s standard is that 80% of determinations of successful applications will be made within 42 days from the lodgment of the initial claim.	80%	Centrelink monthly management information report	>90%
Payments are made to those who are eligible for assistance. The amount paid equals the amount to which an individual or family is entitled, and payment errors are rectified once they have been identified.		Assurance statement provided by Centrelink to the department	A compliance audit is scheduled for the 2008–09 financial year to verify these figures independently.
Based on the information provided, the eligibility of an applicant is correctly assessed.	95%
The amount paid to a recipient is correct.	95%
Payments are corrected once an error has been identified.	100%
Farm Help
Income Support is provided to low income families in financial need
Determine the initial eligibility of the customer. Centrelink’s standard is that 80% of determinations of successful applications will be made within 42 days from the lodgment of the initial claim.	80%	Centrelink monthly management information report	Average for the year was 89%.
Payments are made to those who are eligible for assistance. The amount paid equals the amount to which an individual or family is entitled, and payment errors are rectified once they have been identified.		Assurance statement provided by Centrelink to the department	Negotiations with Centrelink are in progress to specify an appropriate mechanism to measure performance. Results from the EC compliance audit will inform these negotiations.
Based on the information provided, the eligibility of an applicant is correctly assessed.	95%
The amount paid to a recipient is correct.	95%
Payments are corrected once an error has been identified.	100%
Customers are provided with an effective decision support system for adjustment and/or exit
Make re-establishment grant payments in a timely fashion. Centrelink’s standard is that 80% of payments to eligible customers (excluding review and appeal cases and applicants seeking ministerial discretion) will be made within 13 weeks from the lodgment of the second claim (re-establishment claim).	80%	Centrelink monthly management information report	86%, based on a rolling 12-month average of successful claims paid within the agreed timeframe.
Professional advice is received by a minimum of 90% of those who commence on the income support (hardship customers).	90%	Assurance statement from Centrelink	Assurance statement has been provided.
All Farm Help recipients develop a Pathways Plan (hardship customers may cancel off-farm help before developing a Pathways Plan).	100%	Assurance statement from Centrelink	Assurance statement has been provided.
Recipients who participate in a professional advice session will consider that the session was of value in providing decision-making support.	90%	Department’s exit surveys and longitudinal study	87%, which we consider to be within an acceptable range.
Recipients who undertake training will consider that the session was of value in developing skills to improve their financial situation, identifying transferable market skills and assisting in re-establishment.	80%	Department’s exit surveys and longitudinal study	No figure for all participants is available (this performance indicator will be reviewed in 2008–09).
Recipients who consider professional advice and training make a significant contribution to re-establishment or adjustment.	80%	Department’s exit surveys and longitudinal study	84%
Recipients who believe they are better off at the end of Farm Help than before starting the program in terms of financial self-reliance/security.	90%	Department’s exit surveys and longitudinal study	93%
Recipients who have undertaken a quarterly review with the Farm Help Contact Officer since commencing on the program.	100%	Assurance statement from Centrelink	Assurance statement has been provided.
The program is successful in supporting industry adjustment
Program recipients undertake some form of adjustment in their current business operation (broken down into farmers who restructure their farm enterprise, farmers who increase their reliance on off-farm income, farmers who exit, and farmers who exit and make a successful transition to another form of employment).	75%	Department’s exit surveys and longitudinal study	81% of program recipients undertook some form of adjustment in the 12 months after finishing the program. In the second interview period, 40% of recipients had undertaken further adjustment.
Farmers act in accordance with their Pathways Plan (that is, meet adjustment outcomes through professional advice and training).	100%	Department’s exit surveys and longitudinal study	100% of farmers surveyed who compulsorily completed a Pathways Plan acted in accordance with it.

Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism

Economic research, forecasts, statistical services and briefings

The department provides economic research, forecasts, statistical services and briefings to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET). This work relates to minerals, energy and climate change.

Funds are appropriated to DRET, which pays ABARE according to a schedule in the ABARE–DRET Research Agreement. The agreement defines the services, outlines costs, and includes a protocol for quarterly progress monitoring. Performance outcomes are detailed against each project in the agreement.

In 2007–08, performance for all measures was satisfactory.

Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

National Biotechnology Strategy

The Australian Government funded the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) to support the National Biotechnology Strategy for four years from 2004 to June 2008. We have a purchaser–provider arrangement with Biotechnology Australia (an agency within DIISR) governed by a memorandum of understanding signed in August 2004.

In 2007–08, the department received $665,600 through this arrangement (2006–07: $1.42 million).

The key performance indicators for 2007–08 were to:

• identify and address information
• gaps in agricultural biotechnology
• meet stakeholders’ needs and information requirements to enable them to make more informed decisions about agricultural biotechnology
• contribute to domestic and international development of policy on biotechnology issues
• monitor and report on performance.

All performance measures were met.

Reports released and other activities undertaken under the National Biotechnology Strategy are elaborated in ‘Output 2, Rural Policy and Innovation, Agricultural biotechnology’.

Funding for the National Biotechnology Strategy expired on 30 June 2008. In 2008–09, we will continue to work with DIISR as the department’s commitments under the memorandum of understanding are finalised.

Australian Agency for International Development

Management of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Capacity Building Program

The department has a strategic partnership agreement with AusAID. The agreement aims to strengthen cooperation between us in a whole‑of-government approach to development work in the Asia–Pacific region.

Records of understanding under the agreement detail activities funded through Australia’s aid program, along with accountability requirements. Two separate records of understanding cover AusAID’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Capacity Building Program (SPSCBP) and the Emerging and Re‑emerging Zoonotic Disease Regional Initiative Program (ERZDRIP).

The department is funded to manage the SPSCBP and the ERZDRIP to deliver outputs set out in the two programs’ design documents. Performance indicators for these arrangements are listed against each of the services in the records of understanding, as are all resource implications. Our management of these programs is fully costed, including salaries, salary on‑costs, travel and other overheads.

Scheduled activities under the SPSCBP were implemented except for several workshops rescheduled to July–September 2008. Political upheaval in Myanmar necessitated the relocation and rescheduling of one activity. AusAID accepted two formal reports, and an external review recommended priorities for the final year of program implementation.

The ERZDRIP program design document was reviewed to place greater emphasis on avian influenza preparedness. The agreed ERZDRIP activities have taken place, and AusAID has accepted progress reports.

The program will continue under largely similar arrangements into 2008–09.

National Measurement Institute

Analytical testing services

The National Residue Survey engages the National Measurement Institute (NMI) by competitive tender to provide analytical testing services. This is a fee‑for-service arrangement. The services vary according to the individual memorandum of understanding for each program for which the institute is the successful tenderer. The contracts cover all accountability and resourcing aspects.

In 2007–08, the agreed activities were performed in accordance with contractual arrangements. The NMI was successful in the last round of competitive tendering for analytical testing services and will be providing these services for a number of our programs this financial year.

Analysis of imported food

Under the Imported Food Control Act 1992, the AQIS Imported Food Program appoints laboratories and analysts to carry out tests on imported food. Importers choose from among those appointed by AQIS for the analysis of food samples taken during the inspection of imported food products. The NMI is one of the analysts appointed under the Act. The client of the analyst is usually the importer who pays for the analysis.

However, goods for which a government to-government arrangement has been negotiated and which are imported under a Foreign Certification Arrangement are audited at a rate of 5%. In those cases, AQIS pays for the cost of the analysis and may elect to use the NMI’s services. In 2007–08, AQIS paid the NMI approximately $91 882 for such services.

Australian Customs Service

Integrated Cargo System

During 2007–08, AQIS had a purchaser–provider arrangement with the Australian Customs Service. AQIS paid $0.14 million for requested changes to the Australian Customs Service Integrated Cargo System.

Back to contents