Footnotes

Chapter 1 - Introduction

[1]           Draft annual reports were largely representative of the final volumes except in specific incidences. Where differences resulted from comments made during the initial hearings these have been recorded in this review.

[2]           From now on referred to as Requirements (1994).

[3]           From now on referred to as Guidelines (1982).

Chapter 2 - Annual reports of departments

[1]           Scrutiny of Annual Reports No. 1 of 1996, (July 1996), paragraph 2.17, p. 7.

[2]           Defence Annual Report 1995-1996, pp 1-6.

[3]           In its assessment of that report the Committee took Sub-program 2.2¾Executive as an example of problems noted in performance reporting. It observed that the performance measures did not allow assessment of program outcomes which were in themselves mere inventories of activities and events, weakly linked to the measures. See Scrutiny of Annual Reports No. 1 of 1996, pp 5-6.

[4]           The requirements encourage cross-referencing of information provided in the internal and external scrutiny sections of the report to other relevant sections. See the Requirements (1994) p. 4.

[5]           See Requirements (1994) p. 5.

[6]           In particular, Committee members had problems assessing information presented in the annual report against that in the Portfolio Budget Statements issued by the Department. Thus, for example, Senator Margetts inquiring about Defence Force capability development, found that the Defence annual report and PBS were 'not in an easy to read format'. See Senate Committee Hansard, 17 September 1996, p. 10.

[7]           Inconsistent presentation of performance information and, particularly, the absence of performance measures for most sub-programs were major criticisms of the last two Foreign Affairs and Trade reports. See Committee comments in its review of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Annual Report 1994-95, Scrutiny of Annual Reports No. 1 of 1996, paragraph 2.21, p. 8.

[8]           The Requirements (1994) ask for a concise corporate perspective of equity action taken and for reporting of equity outcomes as part of the assessment of each program's performance, p. 3.

[9]           Senator Schacht, Senate Committee Hansard, 24 September 1996, p. 365.

[10]         Senator Schacht, Senate Committee Hansard, 24 September 1996, p. 398.

[11]         Sub-program 6.1, pp 297-8 and Senator Schacht, Senate Committee Hansard, 23 September 1996, p. 241.

[12]         Senator Hogg, Senate Committee Hansard, 24 September 1996, p. 389.

[13]         Ageing population as reported in 'Overview and Corporate Strategies', The Annual Reports of the Repatriation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs 1995-96, pp 24-5, 92.

[14]         Compensation Pensions to Veterans and War Widows, Department of Veteran's Affairs, Australian National Audit Office Audit Report No. 3, 1996-97. Follow-up Audit. (August 1996). In the report, the Department's response to the recommendations of an audit conducted in 1992 was favourably assessed.

[15]         Audit Report No. 3, p. xv.

Chapter 3 - Annual reports by statutory and non-statutory authorities

[1]           Senator Schacht, Senate Committee Hansard, 23 September 1996, p. 267.

[2]           Scrutiny of Annual Reports No.1 of 1996, July 1996, p. 14.

[3]           'Making a Difference ¾Corporate Overview', Australian Trade Commission Annual Report 1995-96, p. 20.

[4]           The 1994-95 annual report, by contrast, was structured to meet the Requirements (1994). See DFRDB Authority Annual Report 1994-95, p. 42.

[5]           Scrutiny of Annual Reports No.1 of 1996, July 1996, pp 16-7.

[6]           Ibid, p. 18.

[7]           Ibid, p. 19.

[8]           The formatting of the publication has consistently received Committee commendation. See Scrutiny of Annual Reports No.1 of 1996, July 1996, p. 20.