|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Finance and Administration Portfolio
4.1
The Committee took evidence from the Department of
Finance and Administration, Department of Human Services and agencies of the
Finance and Administration portfolio on Tuesday,
14 February 2006.
Department of Finance and Administration
4.2
The Committee's examination of the department devoted a
significant amount of time to scrutinising the complex arrangements for the
establishment and operation of the Future Fund. Questioning focused on the
vetting of proposed members of the board, public statements of the designated
chair of the fund, the proceeds of the Telstra 3 sale that will go to the fund
and the effect of the fund on the Commonwealth's other superannuation
liabilities.
4.3
Other issues raised by the Committee and other senators
included:
-
Forward estimated expenses and final outcomes
for DOFA;
-
The source of the title, and duties of,
'guardians' under the Commonwealth
Authorities and Companies Act 1997;
-
The department's performance pay system;
-
ANAO report No. 28 of 2005-06 on management of
net appropriation agreements and the scope for improving enforcement to prevent
future breaches;
-
Departmental resources during the federal
election caretaker period for costings of government and opposition policy
announcements;
-
Staff turnover, particularly in the budget
group;
-
Impact of the full sale of Telstra on staff with
Commonwealth superannuation;
-
Treatment of same-sex couples under the Public
Sector Superannuation (PSS) and Commonwealth Sector Superannuation (CSS) schemes;
-
Prosecution of people attempting to defraud the
CSS;
-
The reallocation of the Office of Evaluation and
Audit to the department and its role in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Land Fund;
-
Arrangements with banks for the sale of Telstra;
-
The proposed sale of the Snowy Mountains
Corporation;
-
Allocation of MOPS staff;
-
The role of the Government Members Secretariat
in relation to Opposition members
-
Allocation of laptop computers to MOPS staff
during the 2004 federal election; and
-
Engagement of a consultant to brief MOPS staff
of the impact of the Workchoices Act.
4.4
With respect to the Future Fund, there was some
interest in seeking the appearance of its designated chair before the Committee
during the examination of DOFA. The department advised that while not yet
officially appointed as chair Mr Murray
was engaged as a consultant to the department. Standing order 26 provides for
questions at estimates hearings to be put to 'ministers and officers'. While
there have been cases where departmental contractors or consultants have been
deemed to be in effect 'officers', in this instance the Committee understood
that Mr Murray's
current status did not qualify him to appear in that capacity.
Australian Electoral Commission
4.5
The Committee questioned the commission on a number of
issues related to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity
and Other Measures) Bill 2005. (The bill was referred prior to the additional
estimates round to the Committee for inquiry and report.)
4.6
As usual, the Committee also pursued with the
commission its interest in matters under investigation. This included
disciplinary proceedings against two AEC officers for breaches of the Public
Service Act code of conduct during the 2004 federal election.
4.7
Other issues raised by the Committee and other senators
included:
-
Recent deregistration of certain party branches;
-
Whether the recently established Independent
Candidate Advisory Network was a political party or associated entity under the
Electoral Act; and
-
Measures to address issues relating to some of
the how-to-vote cards used in the Richmond division during the 2004 federal
election.
Department of Human Services and agencies
4.8
The Committee examined the department together with the
Child Support Agency, CRS Australia, Centrelink and Medicare Australia.
4.9
Concerns relating to the department's answers to
questions on notice surfaced on several occasions during the hearing, as they
have done during previous hearings with the department. The Committee and the
department discussed options for improving the way questions on notice are
handled. The Secretary of the department, Ms
Patricia Scott,
indicated that an arrangement to enable early warning from the department of
questions that were posing difficulties in answering (because the data was not
available, for instance, or collating it would incur inordinate expense) would
help matters. Ms Scott
suggested that questions of this nature could be drawn to the relevant
senator's attention, with a view to refining the question if possible.
4.10
The Committee considers there is some merit in this
approach, although it would see it as operating only rarely under exceptional
circumstances. The Committee would be alarmed if the department were to raise
concerns about questions on notice regularly.
4.11
The department's approach of referring senators to its
annual report as a way of answering questions on notice also drew concern. Ms
Scott said that the department felt that
this was an economical use of public resources. However, the Committee's view
is that due to their brevity annual reports are often of limited use in
exploring issues in detail. The department should make the effort, in all
instances, to answer questions as fully as possible. As the Committee observed
in its recent assessment of the DHS annual report, if the department is going
to rely on the annual report to answer questions on notice then the department
needs to make the commensurate effort to ensure its annual report meets the
Parliament's accountability and transparency requirements.[7]
4.12
Other issues raised by members of the Committee and
other senators in attendance included:
-
Delays in implementing the Parkinson report's
recommendations on child support;
-
Centrelink's administration of the job seeker
classification index;
-
Additional funding for comprehensive work
capacity assessments;
-
Disability access measures incorporated in the
request for tender process with service providers;
-
Fee structure for service providers under the
request for tender process;
-
Staff recruitment;
-
Expenditure on e-health and development of the
Medicare smart card;
-
Applications for carers allowance;
-
Trends with people with autism and Asberger's
syndrome receiving the disability support pension;
-
Rent assistance for tenants of the Aboriginal
Housing Service;
-
Childcare data sharing between Centrelink and
the Australian Taxation Office;
-
Management of the compliance regime and
Centrelink discussions with non government organisations on tendering out
elements of the service;
-
Centrelink's implementation of ANAO
recommendations related to customer feedback; and
-
Data gaps on Aboriginal client appeals to
Centrelink.
Acknowledgements
4.13
The Committee expresses its appreciation of the service
provided by the secretariat, broadcasting and transcription services provided
by the Department of Parliamentary Services and the service provided by the
Black Rod's Office and Committee Room attendants in preparing the rooms and
providing refreshments for members and witnesses during the hearing.
4.14
The Committee also wishes to thank all ministers and
departmental and agency officers for their assistance.
Next hearings—Budget estimates 2005-06
4.15
By resolution of the Senate, the Committee is scheduled
to consider the budget estimates for the 2005-06 financial year from Monday 23 May
through Friday 27 May 2005.
4.16
While the Committee endeavours to follow the usual
convention relating to the order of appearance of witnesses, it reminds
ministers, departments and agencies that they need to be prepared to be
available on the above days.
Senator Brett Mason
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
|
