2.1
Chapter 2 sets out the findings of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) inquiry into the Commonwealth performance framework, based on Audit Report No. 6 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector—the first corporate plan under the framework. The objective of the audit was to assess Commonwealth entity progress in implementing the corporate plan requirement under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and PGPA Rule 2014.
2.2
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reviewed the corporate plans and supporting processes of the following nine entities: Australian War Memorial (AWM); Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC); Australian Federal Police (AFP); Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC); Australian Sports Foundation (ASF); Bureau of Meteorology (BOM); Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA); Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT); and Director of National Parks (DNP).
2.3
The audit scope also included reviewing the whole-of-government administration of the corporate planning requirement by the Department of Finance (Finance). The ANAO surveyed 164 Commonwealth entities and companies to gauge satisfaction with the support provided by Finance.
2.4
The Committee called representatives from CSC and AWM to a public hearing for the inquiry, along with representatives from the ANAO and Finance.
2.5
While the Committee was considering Audit Report No. 6, the ANAO tabled a companion audit, Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector 2016-17—the second corporate plan under the Commonwealth performance framework. Chapter 2 also briefly examines this audit.
Committee conclusions and recommendations
Committee conclusions and recommendations
2.7
The Committee makes a number of recommendations on related matters in this chapter and Chapter 3. The Independent Review of the PGPA Act, in progress at the time of the Committee tabling its report, will also cover a range of matters relevant to the Committee’s inquiry. The Committee has made some recommendations for the attention of the review, but the Committee’s primary focus will be to monitor implementation of the review recommendations by Finance and other agencies, noting also that the review’s comprehensive terms of reference were developed in consultation with the JCPAA.
2.8
The ANAO has now completed audits of two cycles of corporate plans under the Commonwealth performance framework.
2.9
The Committee notes the ‘solid start’ by the nine audited Commonwealth entities in implementing the requirements under the PGPA Act and PGPA Rule for the first corporate plan under the framework. All nine entities met the minimum content requirements and eight entities met the minimum publication requirements (with the ninth entity rectifying this matter).
2.10
The Committee notes that five entities had positioned, or were working to position, the corporate plan as their primary planning document, and acknowledges sound progress by the remaining four entities, including CSC and AWM, in meeting this requirement. Similarly, eight entities had all or most key elements evident and/or operating as intended in terms of their corporate plan development process, and the Committee acknowledges good progress by the remaining entity, CSC, in addressing this matter. In terms of processes for monitoring achievements against corporate plans, six entities were progressively implementing or had mature arrangements in place, and the Committee again acknowledges good progress by the other entities, including AWM, in implementing such arrangements. The Committee emphasises that further work will be required by entities to fully embed all the requirements into future corporate plans.
2.11
In terms of implementing the requirements under the PGPA Act and PGPA Rule for the second corporate plan, the Committee notes that all four entities reviewed as part of Audit Report No. 54 met the minimum content and publication requirements for their corporate plans. However, the ANAO found that the four entities were at different levels of maturity in their implementation of the corporate plan requirements, and pointed to a number of areas requiring improvement. In particular, the ANAO expressed disappointment that ‘some entities are not moving more quickly to learn from the lessons of the first cycle of corporate planning’, and concluded that ‘more active attention from senior management’ was required to further embed the requirements in the third cycle of corporate planning. The Committee strongly agrees with this finding.
2.12
The Committee recommends that each of the four audited Commonwealth entities from Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector 2016-17, report back to the Committee on how its senior management team is working to further embed the corporate planning requirements in future planning cycles, to address the audit finding at paragraph 13 of Audit Report No. 54 and with reference to the other ‘opportunities for improvement’ identified as part of the audit.
2.13
Improving the Commonwealth performance framework—and, in particular, the quality of performance information to focus on outcomes and strengthen accountability—has been a long-term focus of the JCPAA. The Committee notes the Auditor-General’s observation at the public hearing that ‘it is common for us in undertaking work to point to a poor quality in the amount of performance information sitting around program implementation and that makes it difficult for agencies to monitor implementation or monitor results of activity’. The Committee makes a recommendation related to this matter in Chapter 3.
2.14
The Committee commends Finance for its effective support to entities on the corporate plan requirements through a range of activities, including Communities of Practice groups and ‘Lessons learned’ publications. The Committee notes the ANAO survey finding that some 84 per cent of entities indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the support received from Finance.
2.15
The Committee also notes that Finance has regularly updated the Resource Management Guidance for the Commonwealth performance framework where clarification has been required—for example, the corporate plan requirements relating to the purposes of an entity. The Committee agrees with the ANAO that a number of other corporate plan requirements would benefit from clarification and review as part of the Independent Review of the PGPA Act. In particular, the Committee maintains that the PGPA Rule and guidance should require that corporate plans include resourcing information and specific information on entity key risks, and should also clarify the reporting periods of the corporate plan requirements.
2.16
The Committee recommends the Department of Finance note that the Committee refers the following matters to the attention of the Independent Review of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013:
the requirements relating to the inclusion in corporate plans of resourcing information and key entity risks, informed by the findings of ANAO Report No. 6 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector (paragraphs 3.10-3.16)
the content, interpretation and application of the mandatory process requirement relating to the four reporting periods of the corporate plan, informed by the findings of Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector 2016-17 (paragraphs 2.21-2.24)
2.17
The Committee notes that Finance’s project management arrangements for implementing the Commonwealth performance framework and the corporate plan requirements improved over time and that revised milestones were met. Nevertheless, the ANAO identified, as an opportunity for improvement in this regard, that ‘Finance should strengthen project management arrangements for the implementation of the performance framework to support the timely release of future legislative requirements and related guidance’.
2.18
The Committee points to the importance of such arrangements, for example, in implementing stage 3 of the Public Management Reform Agenda (PMRA), with its focus on risk management and ‘joined up’ government. At the public hearing, Finance outlined that ‘key things’ it was currently progressing included ‘how people collaborate, or cooperate, across government and between jurisdictions … [and] how we approach risk in a more differentiated manner … As we move through those, and because they are set up on a project basis … we try and deal with them, close them off, move them into a kind of a business-as-usual mode, and then pick up the new things’. Finance further emphasised that shifting to a more differentiated, mature approach to risk ‘is a very big change, and it will not just magically happen one day. It is a progressive thing.’ As implementation of these important processes is still ongoing, and noting the ANAO finding, the Committee sees benefit in a progress report on this matter from Finance.
2.19
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance report back to the Committee on progress in implementation by Commonwealth entities of a more mature approach to risk management and ‘joined up’ government, including key milestones, deliverables and outcomes to date, particularly as evidenced through entity performance reporting documentation.
2.20
As discussed above, the Committee recognises Finance has undertaken a number of activities that have effectively informed entity implementation of the corporate plan requirements. However, the Committee maintains, as also highlighted by the ANAO, that Finance should develop a more comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program for the ongoing implementation of the performance framework, as previously recommended in JCPAA Report 453.
2.21
The Commonwealth performance framework aims to ensure a clear read of performance information across corporate plans, Portfolio Budget Statements (PBSs), annual reports and annual performance statements (with this information also being consistent and comparable across entities and reporting cycles), to improve line of sight between the use of public resources and the outcomes achieved by Commonwealth entities. The Committee maintains that further improvements could also be made as regards this matter.
2.22
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance (Finance) undertake a more comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program for the ongoing implementation of the Commonwealth performance framework, including reporting on:
the quality of performance information
line of sight across performance reporting documentation
progress in terms of the broader Public Management Reform Agenda
whole-of-government outcomes for implementation of the framework
Finance should provide a yearly report to the Committee on the above matters by way of a snapshot on the ‘health’ of the Commonwealth performance framework, with this report to also be published on the Finance website.
2.23
The ANAO made a number of audit findings in its two corporate planning audits, and also identified key learnings of relevance to all Commonwealth entities (Audit Report No. 6). The Committee commends the ANAO and Finance for their work in identifying comprehensive ‘key learnings’, ‘opportunities for improvement’ and ‘lessons learnt’ from each corporate plan and annual performance statements cycle, providing entities with an invaluable reference source. The Committee points to the usefulness of a consolidated reference to such material, to assist with further embedding these findings and drive continuous improvement. In its Audit Insights publication, the ANAO noted that it is ‘exploring options to provide stakeholders with additional insights into public sector administration. A specific focus will be the development and publication of materials that draw together key learnings from across the ANAO’s work, with the aim of assisting entities to improve their delivery of programs and services. These products will be published on the ANAO website as audit insights’. The Committee looks forward to the further development of this initiative.
Review of evidence
2.24
This section reviews the evidence received by the Committee regarding:
Finance support and guidance
Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector 2016-17
Key learnings for all Commonwealth entities and implementation of audit findings
PGPA Act requirements
2.25
Under the Commonwealth performance framework, established under the PGPA Act and PGPA Rule, Commonwealth entities are required to publish corporate plans each reporting period. Annual performance statements, included in the annual report, provide an assessment of an entity’s progress in achieving its purposes, as set out in its corporate plan and aligned to the PBS. The publication of the corporate plan represents the beginning of a performance cycle and the annual performance statements the end of a cycle. Corporate plans are intended to be the primary planning documents of Commonwealth entities. The first corporate plans were required to be published by 31 August 2015 (unless otherwise specified), and the first annual performance statements were required to be included in entities’ 2015-16 annual reports.
2.26
Section 35 of the PGPA Act requires Commonwealth entities to prepare and publish a corporate plan each year in accordance with any requirements prescribed by the PGPA Rule. The ANAO concluded that ‘eight of the nine selected entities met the minimum requirements for the publication of their corporate plans’. ASF provided its corporate plan to the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Finance after publication on its website, contrary to sub-section 16E(5) of the PGPA Rule. In its submission to the Committee’s inquiry, ASF confirmed that an updated corporate plan was ‘provided to the relevant Ministers in advance of publication, and hence this point has been actioned’.
2.27
Section 16E of the PGPA Rule outlines the minimum content requirements for corporate plans, providing for six specific matters to be included, as follows:
1 Introduction: The following:
(a) a statement that the plan is prepared for paragraph 35(1)(b) of the Act;
(b) the reporting period for which the plan is prepared;
(c) the reporting periods covered by the plan.
2 Purposes: The purposes of the entity.
3 Environment: The environment in which the entity will operate for each reporting period covered by the plan.
4 Performance: For each reporting period covered by the plan, a summary of:
(a) how the entity will achieve the entity’s purposes; and
(b) how any subsidiary of the entity will contribute to achieving the entity’s purposes; and
(c) how the entity’s performance will be measured and assessed in achieving the entity’s purposes, including any measures, targets and assessments that will be used to measure and assess the entity’s performance for the purposes of preparing the entity’s annual performance statements under section 16F.
5 Capability: The key strategies and plans that the entity will implement in each reporting period covered by the plan to achieve the entity’s purposes.
6 Risk oversight and management: A summary of the risk oversight and management systems of the entity for each reporting period covered by the plan (including any measures that will be implemented to ensure compliance with the finance law).
2.28
The ANAO concluded that all nine entities had ‘met the minimum content requirements’ of the PGPA Rule. At the public hearing, the Auditor-General noted that these entities had ‘made a solid start in implementing the corporate plan requirements, with further work required to fully embed the requirements into future plans’. In addition, the Auditor-General observed that ‘it was pleasing what we saw in that first audit, that agencies were taking the implementation of corporate planning seriously and were working at it. Given that it was the first round, we thought it was as good as you could expect, maybe a bit better’.
2.29
As set out in Table 2.1 below, the ANAO used a four-point maturity scale to assess the nine audited entities against the following categories:
corporate plans as entity primary planning document
entity processes for developing corporate plans
entity processes for monitoring achievements against corporate plans
how entities intend to achieve their purposes (self-assessment)
2.30
These matters are discussed below.
Table 2.1: Corporate plans: Commonwealth entity levels of maturity against four categories
|
|
Level 1 (less mature)
|
Level 2
|
Level 3
|
Level 4 (more mature)
|
|
Primary planning document
|
Corporate plan not established as entity’s primary planning document
|
Corporate plan not fully established as entity’s primary planning document
|
Entity working to fully establish corporate plan as primary planning document
|
Corporate plan is established as entity’s primary planning document
|
|
Processes for developing plans
|
Process for developing plan lacked key elements
|
Some key elements in development process were evident
|
Most key elements in development process were evident
|
All key elements in development process evident & operating as intended
|
|
Processes for monitoring achievements
|
No systems & processes for monitoring plan in place
|
Some systems & processes for monitoring plan in place
|
Systems & processes for monitoring plan in place but not fully operating
|
Systems & processes for monitoring plan in place & fully operating
|
|
How entities intend to achieve their purposes
|
Plan does not outline comprehensive approach to how entity intends to measure & assess performance in achieving its purposes
|
Plan partially outlines approach to how entity intends to measure & assess performance in achieving its purposes
|
Plan partially outlines how entity intends to measure & assess performance in achieving its purposes
|
Plan outlines a mature approach to how entity intends to measure & assess performance in achieving its purposes
|
Source: ANAO Report No. 6 (2016-17), pp. 29, 31, 37-38
Primary planning document
2.31
To assess whether entities had positioned corporate plans as their primary planning documents, the ANAO considered whether:
planning frameworks incorporated entity corporate plans as the central element;
entities monitored achievements against their plans to assist in driving business performance; and
senior management was fully engaged in the development and monitoring of the plans.
2.32
The ANAO found that:
five of the nine entities involved in the audit (AFP, ASIC, CASA, DNP, DFAT) had positioned their first corporate plan as the primary planning document or were working to achieve this in future planning periods, in line with the policy intent of the new performance framework
four of the nine entities (CSC, AWM, ASF, BOM) had not fully positioned their first corporate plan as the primary planning document and continued to use pre-existing planning frameworks
2.33
The ANAO noted that CSC, AWM, ASF and BOM had ‘continued to monitor and report against performance measures included in other planning documents and those measures did not fully align with the measures included in the entity’s corporate plan’.
2.34
The CSC corporate plan was at the lowest of the four stages of maturity in the ANAO’s assessment matrix—the plan had not been established as the entity’s primary planning document. In its submission to the inquiry, CSC explained that it had taken a ‘compliance approach to developing its 2015-16 Corporate Plan so as to meet the requirements under the PGPA Act by the required deadline of 31 August 2015 … primarily due to CSC’s focus on the merger of ComSuper into CSC on 1 July 2015, legislation for which only passed on 15 June 2015’. The merger was a ‘major event’ for CSC, and it was ‘critical that services to our 720,000 members, preservers and pensioners be maintained during the transition period. While much planning had occurred before 15 June, it was only after that date that many core operational issues could be finalised’. CSC confirmed that its second corporate plan specifically states that it is ‘CSC’s principal planning document for delivering on its purpose’. To ensure that its corporate plan is the primary planning document, CSC also noted that its board agreed for 2016-17:
The PGPA corporate plan be regarded as the principal planning document for delivering on CSC’s purpose of growing the wealth of Australian Government employees and members of the Australian Defence Force for their retirement, and will contain performance criteria and targets that indicate achievement of that purpose;
The CSC strategic plan will outline specific strategic milestones and outcomes that will assist in delivering on this purpose, and the links between the strategic milestones and performance criteria/targets will be documented separately; and
Quarterly reporting will be provided to the Board on the performance criteria and targets in the 2016-17 PGPA corporate plan, the strategic milestones and other key operational objectives.
2.35
The AWM corporate plan was at the second of the four stages of maturity in the ANAO’s assessment matrix—the plan had not been fully established as the entity’s primary planning document. In its submission to the inquiry, AWM explained that during 2015-16, the first year of the corporate plan, it had ‘continued to monitor and report performance against the deliverables outlined in its business plan, which provides greater detail on the Memorial’s objectives’. However, AWM confirmed that, in response to the audit findings, it had ‘implemented a formal monitoring and quarterly reporting process to specifically evaluate performance against the targets in the Corporate Plan’. Further:
Independently of the ANAO audit observations, the Memorial revised the content and performance measures included in the 2016-17 corporate plan based on updated reference and support material provided by Department of Finance. The document will continue to be reviewed as part of the annual business planning cycle to improve the usefulness of performance information …
The Memorial is committed to continuing to refine and enhance its strategic performance measures, targets and assessment processes to provide meaningful information on how it will achieve its purpose. This will be achieved through:
refinements to the current annual planning program to:
incorporate early engagement with the senior management group,
actively promote the development and annual review of the corporate plan as a responsibility of all members of the senior management group, and
increase visibility of agency-wide progress against targets through regular discussion of the results by the senior management group.
increased capability to develop useful performance information through ongoing participation in Department of Finance forums and use of support materials.
Processes for developing corporate plans
2.36
In reviewing the systems and processes of entities in developing their first corporate plan, the ANAO considered whether entities:
established structured approaches to support the development of their plans;
clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities;
consulted internal and external stakeholders; and
had fully engaged their management and/or Board.
2.37
The ANAO concluded that the ‘majority of entities had sound processes for developing their first PGPA corporate plan’:
eight of the nine entities involved in the audit (AFP, ASIC, CASA, DNP, DFAT, AWM, ASF, BOM) had all or most key elements in the development process evident and/or operating as intended
for one of the nine entities (CSC), some key elements were evident in the process for developing the corporate plan
2.38
The CSC corporate plan was at the second of the four stages of maturity in the ANAO’s assessment matrix for this category. As discussed above, CSC provided a submission to the inquiry outlining progress in response to the audit findings.
Processes for monitoring achievements against corporate plans
2.39
In reviewing arrangements adopted by entities to monitor implementation of their corporate plans, the ANAO considered whether entities:
developed systems and processes to monitor their plans, particularly in relation to performance;
established clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities; and
had fully engaged their management and/or Board.
2.40
The ANAO concluded that the systems and processes established by entities for monitoring achievements against their corporate plans were at ‘different levels of maturity’ but noted that, as the arrangements reviewed related to the first corporate planning round, ‘some variability could be expected’:
six of the nine entities involved in the audit (AFP, ASIC, CASA, DNP, DFAT, CSC) had made ‘good progress’ in developing arrangements for monitoring and reporting on progress in achieving the measures and other commitments included in their plans—they had ‘mature arrangements in place or were progressively implementing monitoring arrangements to periodically report on progress’ in this area
two of the nine entities (ASF, BOM) had some systems and processes in place for monitoring the corporate plan
one of the nine entities (AWM) had few systems and processes in place for monitoring the corporate plan
2.41
The ANAO noted that ASF, BOM and AWM had ‘reporting arrangements relating to strategic, business or operational plans that did not involve direct reporting against their corporate plans’—the measures reported against ‘did not fully align with the performance measures included in the entity’s corporate plan’.
2.42
The AWM corporate plan was at the lowest of the four stages of maturity in the ANAO’s assessment matrix for this category. As discussed above, AWM provided a submission to the inquiry outlining progress in response to the audit findings—in particular, noting that it had ‘implemented a formal monitoring and quarterly reporting process to specifically evaluate performance against the targets in the Corporate Plan’.
How entities intend to achieve their purposes (self-assessment)
2.43
The Commonwealth performance framework seeks to improve public sector performance information to strengthen accountability. Corporate plans are required to outline how entities intend to measure and assess their performance in meeting their purposes. Entities are then required to report progress in achieving their purposes in annual performance statements included in their annual report. The ANAO sought self-assessments from the nine audited entities on the extent to which their corporate plan outlined how they intended to measure and assess performance in meeting their purposes.
2.44
In terms of this self-assessment:
two of the nine entities involved in the audit (CASA, BOM) self-assessed their corporate plan as outlining a mature approach to how the entity intends to measure and assess its performance in achieving its purposes
seven of the nine entities (CSC, AWM, AFP, ASIC, DNP, DFAT, ASF) self-assessed their corporate plan as partially outlining how the entity intends to measure and assess its performance in achieving its purposes, with entities committing to enhance their approach in future plans
2.45
At the public hearing, CSC and AWM provided an update, in terms of their second corporate plan, on improvements to measuring and assessing performance in achieving their purposes.
2.46
CSC noted that ‘we have done a complete refresh of where we had been from 2015-16 to 2016-17’:
the 2015-16 corporate plan process happened at a time of transition for CSC and we have taken the feedback from the ANAO audit when we have been looking at our 2016-17 corporate plan. If you have a look at the performance criteria and measurement that we have put in this, we have completely refreshed it from the 2015-16 to the 2016-17 to take into account the merged organisation. We have also expanded commentary around risk management and also the environmental analysis.
2.47
AWM noted that ‘we see this as a process of continual improvement in terms of the way that we develop our performance measures and also report on them’:
[AWM] took on board the feedback provided from the Australian National Audit Office and also the additional guidance material provided by the Department of Finance to improve the content of the second corporate plan … So we have now introduced a quarterly reporting process to our council as well as senior management, and also raised the profile of performance reporting at the senior management level so that each senior manager takes responsibility and actively participates in the development, monitoring and evaluation of the targets that we set as an organisation.
2.48
AWM further emphasised how this process of reform had driven organisational cultural change—while the planning process ‘did invite participation from many of the senior management team previously, it was not actively promoted. So that is quite different and we have regular discussions on where we are going and where we need to focus our attention in the next quarter’.
2.49
There was interest at the public hearing in further exploring entity progress in monitoring and evaluating outcomes. The Auditor-General noted that ‘it is common for us in undertaking work to point to a poor quality in the amount of performance information sitting around program implementation and that makes it difficult for agencies to monitor implementation or monitor results of activity’:
In our audit work program, which was published in the middle of this calendar year, we set out the quality of performance information as a key theme within the findings of our audit work … The corporate planning is meant to set out the framework for how an agency assesses whether it is undertaking its purpose. The performance statements included in the annual report are designed to follow through on that … most of the commentary that we go to is around the quality of the information that supports that. While the corporate planning is going to be important in that context, the performance statement component of the reforms is also going to be quite important in driving improvement there.
2.50
As the Auditor-General further observed, ‘there is general agreement that this aspect of public administration requires considerable improvement. The ANAO’s audit work over many years, and that of other Auditors-General both nationally and internationally, has indicated that public sector entities often fall short in demonstrating a clear understanding of what they are trying to achieve and whether intended outcomes are being achieved’.
Finance support and guidance
2.51
The ANAO audit scope included reviewing the whole-of-government administration of the corporate planning requirement by Finance. Five areas are of interest here:
Finance arrangements to monitor and evaluate entity implementation of the corporate plan requirement
Independent Review of the PGPA Act with reference to the corporate plan requirement
clarification of Finance guidance with reference to the corporate plan requirement
Finance support for entities with regard to the corporate plan requirement
Finance project management arrangements for implementation of the corporate plan requirement
Monitoring and evaluation
2.52
The ANAO examined the arrangements established by Finance to monitor and evaluate entity implementation of the corporate plan requirement under the PGPA Act. The ANAO noted that Finance had undertaken a ‘number of activities which usefully informed entities’ implementation of the corporate plan requirement’:
For example, following the publication of entities’ first corporate plans on 31 August 2015, Finance reviewed 71 plans to determine strengths, weaknesses and areas of better practice. Based on this review, Finance developed a lessons learned document that was released in February 2016.
In addition, Finance advised the JCPAA that research work being undertaken by the University of Sydney would inform its work on corporate plans on an ongoing basis. This research project includes an examination of a sample of 2015-19 corporate plans to generate ‘insights into how entity plans, strategies and performance information acknowledge and leverage cooperation and collaboration opportunities’.
Finance also released a performance maturity model intended to support entities in self-assessing and improving their performance framework in June 2016.
2.53
However, the ANAO found that Finance ‘did not have a monitoring and evaluation program to inform the ongoing implementation of the performance framework’. The establishment of such a program early in the implementation process would have ‘better informed Finance’s decisions on the breadth and timing of activities required’.
2.54
The ANAO further highlighted that the establishment by Finance of an ongoing monitoring and evaluation initiative for the Commonwealth performance framework had been a recommendation in JCPAA Report 453:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance commit to an ongoing monitoring, reporting and evaluation initiative for the Commonwealth Performance Framework, performance information in Portfolio Budget Statements and the broader Public Management Reform Agenda. Summary results from this initiative should be publicly reported and submitted to the Committee.
2.55
As JCPAA Report 453 further noted, ‘an active central monitoring, reporting and evaluation initiative across entities could allow both specific and systemic issues to be identified and addressed … It would also provide critical information to inform the independent review of the PGPA Act, due in 2017 and assist the Committee in its ongoing scrutiny of the reforms’.
2.56
The Government response to this JCPAA recommendation stated that:
Finance will continue to monitor the implementation of the enhanced Commonwealth performance framework. Finance will also continue supporting entities to help them improve performance reporting. These support activities include providing information and networking opportunities through the Community of Practice, producing Lessons Learned papers and refining and enhancing guidance …
It is expected that [the Independent Review], of which the report is to be tabled in each House of Parliament, would comment on the ongoing monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the framework.
2.57
Finance pointed to its publication of ‘Lessons learned’ papers, updating of Finance guidance and other consultative processes as an example of its monitoring and evaluation program:
We did a lessons learned paper last year on the 2015-16 corporate plans. We are now finalising one for the 2016-17 corporate plans … This year we have reviewed over 120 to come up with the findings for the lessons learned paper. That is the way we are processing this in terms of monitoring and evaluation. We release a paper which highlights better practice examples. At this stage, as we go through the final completion of that paper, we have around 40 pages of better practice examples, covering everything from performance information to purposes to the overall structure of corporate plans. We are using that document as something to share with entities and companies to identify areas of better practice that they can pick up themselves to improve the quality of their information.
Also as part of the process … we put an offer out for people to have a discussion about how we reviewed their corporate plans and what our judgements were of their corporate plans. That has started now. In the last couple of days about 30 entities have come back to us requesting that engagement … Some people have asked us for one-on-one meetings with them; other people have just asked for our written response. That is the sort of approach we are taking to how we are going to monitor and evaluate things. We are taking it from the view of being a nurturer and teacher in this particular space, not from a compliance perspective. It is about supporting and it is improving the quality of their information in the corporate plans.
Once we go through the corporate plan process, we will then move on to the annual performance statements. We had the first round of annual performance statements as part of the 2015-16 annual reports. We will undertake a similar review of the quality of the annual performance statements and again release a lessons learned paper from the first round of annual performance statements, and focus our communities of practice events around the lessons learned from the annual performance statements, with the notion of also updating our guidance material to reflect some more examples, which is something that entities have asked for—more examples. So we will update our guidance material on both corporate plans and annual performance statements, picking up some of these better practice examples we find in our lessons learned process.
2.58
The key issue raised by the ANAO, however, is that Finance had not developed a monitoring and evaluation program to inform ongoing implementation of the Commonwealth performance framework—the above activities ‘have provided Finance, entities and stakeholders with useful insights into the corporate planning initiative. That said, Finance has not developed a program of activities to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the performance framework over time’.
Independent Review of PGPA Act
2.59
The ANAO reviewed entities’ experiences in preparing their first corporate plans to identify any issues that might benefit from inclusion as part of the Independent Review of the PGPA Act. The ANAO concluded that the Independent Review should consider the requirements relating to the inclusion in corporate plans of resourcing information and key entity risks.
2.60
In terms of resourcing information, while the PGPA Rule does not require the inclusion of resourcing information in an entity’s corporate plan, Finance guidance indicates that entities may consider including such information. The ANAO noted that a number of corporate plans included resourcing information, and emphasised that ‘inclusion of resourcing information in corporate plans is consistent with the focus of the new performance framework,’ providing the Parliament and other stakeholders with a more complete picture of entity operations and establishing a useful link between corporate plans and PBSs.
2.61
In terms of key entity risks, the PGPA Act has embedded risk management as a core duty of Commonwealth entities, and section 16E of the PGPA Rule requires corporate plans to include a summary of the risk oversight and management systems of the entity. The ANAO noted corporate plans reviewed as part of its background research for the audit ‘generally presented information that described the entities’ systems and processes for managing its risks’, but that ‘a small number of entities went further and included specific information on their key risks and the mitigation arrangements in place to effectively manage these risks’. The ANAO emphasised ‘this approach reflects good practice that adds additional value to the corporate planning process’, by providing the Parliament and other stakeholders with specific information and enhanced assurance about the way an entity is managing its risks.
2.62
There was interest at the public hearing in further exploring the corporate plan requirement concerning key entity risks. Finance explained the purpose behind the requirement as trying to ‘shift from a risk averse, one-size-fits-all approach to regulation to a more risk differentiated, mature approach to risk where we recognise that not everything has to be regulated to the nth degree’:
we are just trying to take it from a compliance type of approach to risk to a management type of approach to risk, where you are expecting and enabling public sector managers to at any one point in time be thinking about risk and be prepared to take risks in a responsible manner—in a manner that is articulate, in a manner that has appropriate support and constraint around it. We think that is a very big change, and it will not just magically happen one day. It is a progressive thing. In the same way as we do here on the performance side, we issue guidance, we issue rules, we offer support and we issue information that enables people to improve their own practices. We will do the same, and are doing the same, for risk.
2.63
As to whether it would be mapping ‘low risk-high risk’ matters, to provide entities with guidance on this area and drive cultural change, Dr Helgeby, Deputy Secretary, Finance, responded:
In one sense the PGPA says you have obligations—the rules say ‘Here are the things you must do’ and then the next step is really what people do inside organisations. I have used my own organisation as an example. We have a risk committee, we have a risk statement that we have developed. We went through an extensive process to identify … a risk appetite in particular areas. That is the first time in Finance we have had something where it applies to the whole of the department and where some of these received opinions can be challenged a little bit. What we discovered in that process—I do not think we are alone in this …—is that … there is a methodology that we are risk averse about everything, but in fact we are prepared to take risks in a number of areas and there are a number of areas where we draw a line very tightly. We have to be clear about that and then communicate that to people across the organisation. Our risk committee has articulated, if you like, what the risks are that we see across the organisation and the mitigations and the risk tolerance. Then what we are trying to do is make that part of how we manage on an ongoing basis.
2.64
In terms of the corporate plan requirements for resources information and key entity risks being considered by the Independent Review of the PGPA Act, Finance confirmed that ‘we are very comfortable with the independent review looking at this issue’:
In short sequence we have budget papers, portfolio budget submissions and corporate plans coming out. It is a question about what level of mandating of detail it is necessary to go into in each of those documents. Absolutely we have no problem with it being looked at—we think that is very appropriate. Similarly, with risk, one of the goals of the framework is to improve the focus on risk. We think that has happened, but to the extent that the Audit Office has drawn attention to some of the things they have noticed, again we are very comfortable with that being examined in that context.
2.65
As part of Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), the ANAO added a further matter for consideration as part of the Independent Review:
The content, interpretation and application of one mandatory process requirement—that four of the six of the minimum content requirements are required to cover the four reporting periods of the corporate plan—remains an issue for entities, notwithstanding the release of revised guidance from Finance in July 2016. The clarity of current requirements should be considered as part of the review of the operations of the PGPA Act and PGPA Rule to be conducted after 1 July 2017.
2.66
Under section 16E of the PGPA Rule, corporate plans are required to include a statement about an entity’s environment, performance, capability and risk oversight and management for ‘each reporting period’ covered by the plan. In this way, corporate plans are intended to present planning information over the term of the plan—for entities’ first corporate plan, this period is the four financial years 2015-16 to 2018-19. The ANAO observed that this requirement could be interpreted as requiring corporate plans to provide discrete information for each of the four years covered—however, entities ‘rarely presented information for each year and it may not always be sensible to do so’.
Clarification of Finance guidance
2.67
The ANAO reviewed entities’ experiences in preparing their first corporate plans to identify any issues relating to the Finance guidance on the Commonwealth performance framework that might benefit from clarification. The ANAO concluded that ‘Finance should … clarify in future guidance material the requirements relating to: the purposes of an entity; and reporting on each period covered by the corporate plan’. (The second matter was addressed above.)
2.68
On the first matter, relating to the purposes of an entity, section 8 of the PGPA Act defines ‘purposes’ as including the objectives, functions or role of the entity. The aim of the purposes statement is to give context to the significant activities that the entity will pursue over the period of the plan. The ANAO found that the purposes statements in entities’ first corporate plans were ‘not always expressed clearly and concisely’, making it difficult for a reader to understand the objectives and outcomes that an entity seeks to achieve. A clear and precise purposes statement, expressed in terms of outcomes rather than the activities that an entity undertakes, ‘can provide a solid foundation on which to develop the corporate plan. It can also assist an entity to demonstrate how the other elements of the plan contribute to achieving the entity’s purposes, and underpin the reporting on outcomes’.
2.69
While the Committee was considering Audit Report No. 6, the ANAO tabled a companion audit, Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector 2016-17. The audit criteria for Audit Report No. 54 included reviewing the actions taken by Finance in response to the ANAO’s previous audit. The ANAO advised that Finance had ‘updated its guidance in July 2016 to: include revised wording in relation to purposes and a practical example of how an entity had articulated its purposes’. In its submission to the inquiry, Finance also noted that it had addressed this issue in the updated guidance, incorporating lessons learned from the 2015-16 corporate planning process:
In the updated guidance, Finance has stressed the importance of including clearly identifiable purposes in a relevant and concise manner and distinguishing purpose statements from other strategic statements, such as mission statements, vision or strategic goals. The guidance now includes practical examples of entity purpose statements and also presents a visual example of an entity’s purposes and activities structure.
Entity support
2.70
The ANAO surveyed 164 Commonwealth entities and companies to gauge satisfaction with the support provided by Finance in meeting the corporate plan requirements under the PGPA Act.
2.71
The ANAO concluded that Finance provided ‘effective support to entities through a variety of relevant and helpful engagement activities.’ Some 84 per cent of entities indicated in their survey responses that they were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the support received. More specifically, the ANAO found that:
to inform and guide its delivery of support to entities, Finance settled a communications strategy for Stage 1 of the PMRA in September 2013, with this strategy being revised and updated for Stage 2 in September 2014
in April 2014, Finance developed a consultation strategy for the performance framework project
Finance ‘undertook a variety of relevant and helpful engagement activities, utilising a number of mediums’, including facilitating over twenty Community of Practice workshops and information sessions in Canberra and interstate, providing entities with the opportunity to raise issues and share experiences regarding the development of their first corporate plan
Finance published fortnightly PMRA newsletters that included ‘regular and comprehensive updates’ on the implementation of the corporate plan requirement and information on entity support available
Finance’s reviews of entity draft corporate plans provided ‘specific and helpful advice’ to entities on ways to improve individual plans
following the publication of corporate plans, Finance also conducted lessons learned workshops in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, and released lessons learned papers
2.72
At the public hearing, Finance provided further detail about its support for entities:
From Finance’s perspective, we operate at a number of levels in this area—at the formal mandating level in terms of issuing guidance, and some of that guidance really goes to explaining some of the formal requirements. Others go to more practical matters … We provide on-the-ground support in a number of forms. We run communities of practice, and in fact we have had quite high levels of participation in that. They are running right through this calendar year. We also provide, on request, individualised support to agencies. But that is really something where, if an agency says, ‘Can you come and sit down with us and talk through something?’ or ‘Can you come and help us in a particular way?’ or ‘Can you have a look at our draft?' then we do that. I think in the first round we had a look at … seventy drafts, and in the second round … about 40 .... So we try to operate at all of those levels, and we do concurrently operate at all of those levels. If we see there is demand there to increase one or more of those things, we will adjust accordingly.
2.73
The Auditor-General observed that, ‘with respect to the 84 per cent feedback, I think Finance would be pleased about the feedback that they have had from agencies on the support that was given. I think all of that has been positive’.
2.74
AWM commented that, while ‘we have not participated in a lot of the formal working groups or structures ... when we have approached the Department of Finance for assistance in how best to interpret the information and display it in our corporate plan, the response has been quite supportive’.
Project management arrangements for implementation
2.75
The ANAO reviewed Finance’s arrangements for project managing the whole-of-government implementation of the Commonwealth performance framework, including the corporate plan requirement. The ANAO noted that, ‘in its early stages, there were weaknesses in the project management arrangements established by Finance for the implementation of the corporate plan requirement, particularly in relation to the establishment and monitoring of a fit-for-purpose implementation plan and risk assessment’. During 2014, timeframes for the development of the rules and guidance for the performance framework project ‘slipped by five months against the original timetable established by Finance for the project’.
2.76
However, the ANAO concluded that Finance’s project management arrangements improved going forwards—‘project management improved from August 2014. The timetable was revised in November 2014, and the revised milestones were met’. Nevertheless, the ANAO identified, as an opportunity for improvement in this regard, that ‘Finance should strengthen project management arrangements for the implementation of the performance framework to support the timely release of future legislative requirements and related guidance’.
2.77
This matter was further discussed at the public hearing. The ANAO noted that timeliness of some of Finance’s support activities was ‘one of the areas where we did get some feedback that some more timely support would have been appreciated’. AWM, for example, noted the ‘main challenge that we found was that lack of early guidance and direction in terms of what it actually meant in practical terms in the new corporate plan ... there was a lot of advice that came out, but perhaps if that had come six months earlier, that would have been great’. Mr Andy Young, General Manager, CSC, similarly observed: ‘I would support the comments that the War Memorial has made, in terms of the guidance that has been available from Finance; the timeliness of that did play a factor in terms of us being able to produce a fuller corporate plan for 15-16; however, that was taken into account for 16-17’.
2.78
As to what changes it had made to its current project management arrangements in response to this audit finding, Finance explained that the ‘criticism relates to a period when a lot of things were, in the broader reform program, needing to be advanced concurrently. The way we tackled that was to try and split them up a little bit … we have moved onto a much more standardised project management basis’:
That had some advantages—the biggest advantage was that we could actually progress certain things as long as we had all the arrangements right. And the biggest disadvantage was that some things actually did not get enough attention quickly enough. When we became aware of that, we reorganised it. So the key work now is done in, largely, one part of the department, and it is done on a project basis … we have concentrated the reform efforts in a particular group of people who operate as a team, and who operate as a project group that is able to move resources around between the particular things that need to be advanced.
2.79
In terms of the priority areas and key timeframes associated with implementation of stage 3 of the PMRA, Finance noted that some of the matters it was working on at the moment included:
how people collaborate, or cooperate, across government and between jurisdictions. We have been looking more closely at a number of things, such as how we manage cash. We have been looking at appropriations. We have been looking at pushing this performance side more actively, and we are looking at how we approach risk in a more differentiated manner. Those are the key things we are progressing at the moment. As we move through those, and because they are set up on a project basis, if you like, we try and deal with them, close them off, move them into a kind of a business-as-usual mode, and then pick up the new things … For us the endpoint is the independent review, and then we are trying to make sure that all of the framework-type things that we want to have in place are in place by the time we get there, so that it is a review of implementation and a review of possible next steps rather than a review of something that is part way through development.
Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector 2016-17
2.80
The objective of Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17), Corporate Planning in the Australian Public Sector 2016-17, was to assess Commonwealth entity progress in implementing the corporate plan requirement under the PGPA Act and PGPA Rule.
2.81
The ANAO reviewed the corporate plans and supporting processes of the following entities: Comcare; the Department of Education and Training (Education); the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C); and the National Library of Australia (NLA).
2.82
The ANAO found that the ‘four entities involved in the audit were at different levels of maturity in their implementation of the corporate plan requirements, with further work required in all entities to fully embed the requirements into future plans’. The ANAO made no recommendations but identified some opportunities for improvement for the four audited entities regarding their corporate plans. More specifically, the ANAO found that:
PGPA Act requirements
Each of the selected entities met the minimum requirements for the publication of their corporate plans prepared for the 2016-17 planning cycle. Entity plans were provided to responsible Ministers and the Finance Minister as required, and placed on entity websites by 31 August 2016.
The selected entities included the six specific matters required by the PGPA Rule. These are an introduction and matters relating to the entity’s purposes, environment, performance, capability, and risk oversight and management. There is scope for entities (Comcare, Education and PM&C) to add additional value to the corporate planning process by providing a summary of the risk oversight and management systems of the entity which also addresses the interaction of key system elements.
Primary planning document
Only one entity had positioned its corporate plan as the primary planning document as intended by the framework. Another entity was working to do so. Two entities did not fully meet the policy intent …
Comcare had established its corporate plan as its primary planning document and was using it to manage its business. The NLA was working to fully establish its corporate plan as its primary planning document. In Education and PM&C the corporate plan had not been fully established as the entity’s primary planning document.
Processes for developing corporate plans
The four entities are continuing to develop their processes for developing the corporate plan …
The quality and implementation of relevant entity systems and processes was variable. There remains scope for the selected entities to strengthen the systems and processes used for developing their corporate plans. A more structured approach would involve:
implementation of a documented process and schedule for development of the corporate plan (all entities);
better integration within the entity’s broader planning framework (all entities);
clearer definition of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities and the operation, as intended, of defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities (all entities);
development of strategies for more systematic engagement of stakeholders (all entities); and
earlier and more systematic involvement of the entity’s executive management in the corporate planning process (Education and PM&C).
Processes for monitoring achievements against corporate plans
two entities had developed arrangements for monitoring the implementation of their corporate plans. Two entities had less mature systems and processes for monitoring implementation …
The systems and processes established by entities for monitoring and reporting on achievements against corporate plans were at different levels of maturity. Comcare and the NLA had developed systems and processes to monitor the plan and report periodically to their senior management and Accountable Authority. In Education and PM&C, work has commenced to enhance the systems and processes used to monitor implementation of the plan and report on progress to the executive.
Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for monitoring and reporting on the corporate plan were not clearly defined by the selected entities. There is scope for improvement in respect to:
the frequency of monitoring and reporting against the corporate plan, to establish it as the primary planning document and more effectively support senior management (Education and PM&C); and
clarity of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for monitoring and reporting (all entities).
How entities intend to achieve their purposes
The ANAO’s assessment of the maturity of each key mandatory section of the selected entities’ corporate plans—relating to purposes, environment, performance, capability, and risk oversight and management—indicates that there is scope for improvement in respect to:
Purposes—by making purposes more readily identifiable (Education), and by providing a clearer statement of the intended outcome (NLA and PM&C).
Environment—by better outlining the main factors that are both in control and beyond the control of the entity that are expected to impact the achievement of an entity’s purposes (all entities except NLA).
Performance—by more clearly outlining how the entity intends to measure and assess its performance in achieving its purposes over the life of the plan (all entities except Comcare).
Capability—by more clearly outlining the strategies to be followed in achieving the entity’s purposes over the life of the plan (all entities).
Risk management and oversight—by outlining the key risks that impact the achievement of an entity’s purposes and explaining how its approach to managing risk will support the achievement of entity purposes (all entities).
2.83
The ANAO concluded ‘it is disappointing that some entities are not moving more quickly to learn from the lessons of the first cycle of corporate planning. More active attention from senior management is required to further embed the requirements in the third cycle of corporate planning’.
2.84
Finance noted that ‘there has been an improvement in the quality of corporate plans. That is not across the board, but there are some very good examples of where that improvement has taken place, examples of a more sophisticated approach to corporate planning’:
We cannot dive deep into organisations—we do not have the same investigative powers that the ANAO has, for example—but based upon our analysis, based upon our discussions with people, it appears to us that with those examples that have shown a more sophisticated approach there is also an approach which drives behaviours in the organisation. They are using the corporate plan as a document which tells the world at large, plus people inside the organisation, what you are there to do and how you know you are actually achieving what you are there to do.
Key learnings for all Commonwealth entities and implementation of audit findings
2.85
ANAO and Finance identified a series of ‘key learnings’, ‘opportunities for improvement’ and ‘lessons learnt’ with regard to entity implementation of the Commonwealth performance framework, to drive continuous improvement. Finance noted that it had worked with the ANAO to incorporate its key learnings, together with the lessons learned identified by Finance, ‘into its guidance and to help focus discussion at the community of practice sessions’.
2.86
As to possible challenges to this continuous improvement, the Auditor-General pointed to the need for entities to ‘keep a focus on improvements in these areas’:
that is part of the reason why we intend to continue to do an audit program over these, and why Finance is continuing to review them. It is about ensuring that the agencies maintain a focus on driving improvement, that they are not distracted by other issues, that it does not drop down the priorities and that they can drive the benefits out of the improvement. That is the key risk I would see in driving implementation. Until you get these things really embedded in a way that agencies are getting the benefit out of the planning process, it does not become self generating. The concepts around the corporate planning and the associated performance framework and the risk elements to it are not simply about, in a compliance sense, producing a document; it is about a more strategic, effective way of managing public resources. It is about how you drive that in, not just at the top level but drive it into the business.
2.87
Finance noted that another challenge was ‘changeover of staff’:
One of the difficulties that we are finding now is we like to take this forward step by step. Sometimes you cannot do that … that is a key risk for us which has been exposed to us over the last few weeks—we have to work out how we are going to manage and deal with those organisations where there is a changeover of staff and how we make sure that the good work that has been done previously by these organisations continues to be done as people change and capability changes within those organisations. So how we manage that is part of the lessons learnt for us as an organisation. That is something we are going to heavily focus on over the coming period, to make sure that the improvements that have occurred do continue.
Audit Report No. 6: 2015-2016 Corporate Planning
2.88
Audit Report No. 6 (2016-17) made several findings, and also identified a series of key learnings of relevance to all Commonwealth entities in the development of their corporate plans, as follows:
Corporate plans are intended to be the primary planning documents of Commonwealth entities and companies. They offer an opportunity for entities that prepare multiple planning documents to streamline their planning processes by:
integrating into future corporate plans other statutory and/or regulatory requirements;
better aligning the content of planning documents, particularly the measures to be used to assess entity performance; and
developing arrangements to periodically monitor and report directly against their corporate plans.
Entities should also consider the benefits of broadening consultation with external stakeholders, taking into account the particular circumstances of the entity.
The quality and value of corporate plans is improved where entities transparently present key information. In particular, corporate plans add additional value where entities outline the challenges and risks that impact the successful achievement of the entity’s purposes; and address the operations of the entity over the four years of the plan. The Parliament and other stakeholders are better informed about the operations of the entity if such information is made available.
2.89
The progress of AWM and CSC in implementing the audit findings was discussed above. The other entities audited outlined their implementation progress, as follows:
CASA
CASA was assessed as at level 4 (more mature) for three of the four corporate planning categories examined by the ANAO (Primary planning document, Processes for developing plans, How entities intend to achieve their purposes)
CASA was assessed as at level 3 for the category of ‘Processes for monitoring achievements’—in response, CASA noted it had made ‘solid progress’ against this category and that ‘work is underway to ensure that CASA will be further advanced towards full maturity in this category in the next 12 months’
ASF
ASF was assessed as at level 4 (more mature) for one of the four corporate planning categories examined by the ANAO (Processes for developing plans)
ASF was assessed as at level 3 for the category of ‘How entities intend to achieve their purposes’
ASF was assessed as at level 2 for two of the four corporate planning categories (Primary planning document, Processes for monitoring achievements)—in response, ASF noted that, since the audit, it had ‘updated its Corporate Plan to 2020, and this now forms the primary planning document for the organisation’ and that it was ‘in the process of developing additional [performance] measures for incorporation in its next updated corporate plan’
DNP
DNP was assessed as at level 4 (more mature) for two of the four corporate planning categories examined by the ANAO (Primary planning document, Processes for developing plans)
DNP was assessed as at level 3 for two of the four corporate planning categories (How entities intend to achieve their purposes, Processes for monitoring achievements)—in response, DNP noted that it would improve these areas by:
continuing to develop and articulate clear, measureable indicators (with associated baselines) to monitor performance against each goal of the corporate plan, to improve on the 2015-2019 plan where many indicators were still under development;
ensuring that individual sections report against their respective indicators regularly at the monthly meeting of the DNP Executive Board, including through dashboard and traffic light reporting;
conducting a comprehensive mid-year review of the whole of agency progress towards the objectives outlined in the corporate plan, and to address issues preventing the completion of the those objectives.
DFAT
DFAT was assessed as at level 3 for all four corporate planning categories examined by the ANAO (Primary planning document, Processes for developing plans, How entities intend to achieve their purposes, Processes for monitoring achievements)—in response, DFAT noted a series of completed actions addressing these areas, as well as the following future actions:
DFAT can better align performance measures in divisional, post and STO business plans with the Corporate Plan. This is an iterative process. Guidance on preparing business plans for work units, promulgated by mid-Executive Branch in early 2017, will make clear the importance of linking performance measures with the Corporate Plan …
DFAT’s corporate plan would benefit from increased consultation with external stakeholders, particularly other Commonwealth departments with linkages to the department’s work. Additional external consultation will be incorporated into preparation of DFAT’s next Corporate Plan. The strategy for engaging external stakeholders will be considered by the Departmental Executive prior to preparing the 2017-21 Corporate Plan …
The department is assessing how it can provide additional meaningful periodic reports to the Departmental Executive on Corporate Plan progress.
ASIC
ASIC was assessed as at level 4 (more mature) for one of the four corporate planning categories examined by the ANAO (Processes for developing plans)
ASIC was assessed as at level 3 for three of the four corporate planning categories (Primary planning document, How entities intend to achieve their purposes, Processes for monitoring achievements)—in response, ASIC noted that:
ASIC’s 2016 Corporate Plan, published in August 2016, demonstrates our continued commitment to position our corporate plan as our primary planning document … We have also better aligned the content, including performance measures, of ASIC team business plans with the Corporate Plan …
The process of acquitting our 2015 Corporate Plan through our 2015-16 Annual Performance Statement demonstrated the effectiveness of our current roles, responsibilities and accountabilities in monitoring the implementation of the Corporate Plan …
We are working towards an approach to measuring and assessing performance that entails a greater focus on outcomes. For our future corporate plans, we have committed to refining our approach to more regularly measure stakeholder trust and confidence in industry sectors, and will use a mix of indicators and metrics … As noted in our 2016 Corporate Plan we also use more specific tools to evaluate our performance and communicate with our stakeholders.
AFP
AFP was assessed as at level 3 for all four corporate planning categories examined by the ANAO (Primary planning document, Processes for developing plans, How entities intend to achieve their purposes, Processes for monitoring achievements)—in response, AFP noted that it would:
continue to streamline and centralise its strategic planning processes around the corporate plan. The AFP is also committed to further develop its performance measurement in line with the flexibility provided in the Enhanced Commonwealth Performance Framework. The AFP will also continue active participation in the Department of Finance community of practice … to stay abreast of further reforms and assess the impact on future plans.
BOM
BOM was assessed as at level 4 (more mature) for one of the four corporate planning categories examined by the ANAO (How entities intend to achieve their purposes)
BOM was assessed as at level 3 for the category of ‘Processes for developing plans’
BOM was assessed as at level 2 for two of the four corporate planning categories (Primary planning document, Processes for monitoring achievements)—in response, BOM noted that:
The Bureau is committed to continually improving its performance across all areas of its operations. The information from this review will be used to improve monitoring of achievements against the corporate plan by more direct assessments of enterprise level key performance indicators. The Bureau will also ensure that future corporate plans continue to maintain a complementary relationship with the Bureau’s 2015–2020 Strategic Plan.
Audit Report No. 54: 2016-2017 Corporate Planning
2.90
Audit Report No. 54 (2016-17) identified some opportunities for improvement for the four audited entities regarding their corporate plans, as follows:
There remains scope for the selected entities to strengthen the systems and processes used for developing their corporate plans. A more structured approach would involve:
implementation of a documented process and schedule for development of the corporate plan;
better integration within the entity’s broader planning framework;
clearer definition of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities and the operation, as intended, of defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities; and
development of strategies for more systematic engagement of stakeholders and executive management in the corporate planning process …
Subsection 35(2) of the PGPA Act provides that the corporate plan must comply with any requirements prescribed by the PGPA Rule. There is scope for entities to improve compliance with the mandatory requirements relating to the content of corporate plans by providing a summary of the risk oversight and management systems of the entity which captures the interaction of key system elements (Comcare, Education and PM&C) …
There remains scope for entities to strengthen the systems and processes used to monitor achievements against the plan. This includes:
developing systems and processes to monitor the plan particularly in relation to performance, and ensure these systems and processes are operating as intended;
clearly defining roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for monitoring the implementation of the plan; and
fully engaging senior management in directing the monitoring and evaluation process.