CHAPTER 2 - ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY BODIES

2.1        The following reports of statutory bodies for the financial year 2009-10 were referred to the committee for examination and report:

Attorney-General's Portfolio

• Administrative Appeals Tribunal
• Administrative Review Council
• Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity[1]
• Australian Federal Police[2]
• Australian Government Solicitor
• Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council
• Australian Law Reform Commission
• Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
• Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
• Classification Board and Classification Review Board
• CrimTrac Agency
• Family Court of Australia
• Family Law Council
• Federal Court of Australia
• Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
• High Court of Australia
• National Native Title Tribunal
• Office of Parliamentary Counsel

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

• Office of Migration Agents Registration Authority

2.2        On this occasion, the committee has decided to examine in more detail the reports of AUSTRAC, the High Court of Australia and the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority.

Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)

2.3        The committee commends AUSTRAC on the timely presentation of the annual report on 14 October 2010, which made it available to Senators prior to the supplementary budget estimates hearings on 18 and 19 October 2010.

2.4        The report was the subject of detailed questioning during examination of AUSTRAC's estimates on 18 October 2010. Questioning focussed on:

• the budget and expenditure for the development of the organisation's intelligence systems;
• clarification of figures presented in the annual report of applications for relief from the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006;
• dissemination of suspect transaction and suspicious matter reports;
• the Criminal Intelligence Fusion Centre within the Australian Crime Commission; and
• submission of declaration of financial interests and personal circumstances for senior executive service level staff.[3]

2.5        The Chief Executive Officer noted an increase in transaction reporting to AUSTRAC during the year. AUSTRAC received more than 21 million reports from industry, which represented a nine per cent increase from the previous year and was attributed to a rise in reports of international funds transfer instructions.[4]

2.6        The report features nine case studies which draw on real-life cases in which partner agencies have used AUSTRAC information to assist in their investigations into money laundering and other serious crimes. The case studies were taken from the AUSTRAC typologies and case studies report 2010.[5] The committee welcomes the prudent use of case studies in annual reports to illuminate the work of an agency. In this case, their inclusion is a very useful feature (without being overly lengthy and taking up an excessive amount of space). During the supplementary estimates hearings, Senator Parry complimented AUSTRAC on the use of case studies throughout the report.[6]

2.7        AUSTRAC reported an operating result of $0.7 million surplus, compared to a deficit of $2.4 million for the previous year. The surplus has contributed to an increase in total equity to $11.8 million for 2009-10.[7]

2.8        The committee congratulates AUSTRAC on preparing a report of high standard which features a clear and concise style and an attractive design. The report is informative and adheres to the Requirements for Annual Reports, and the inclusion of a compliance index assisted the committee in its examination of the report.[8] Under the agency overview, the outcome-program structure is clearly articulated and includes a description of the transition to the new reporting structure for the 2009-10 reporting year.[9] The committee is impressed with the clear presentation of performance information in a table format which included results against program deliverables and key performance indicators.

2.9        The committee considers AUSTRAC's annual report to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

High Court of Australia

2.10      The committee notes the prompt tabling of this year's annual report of the High Court of Australia, which was presented on 14 October 2010. In the committee's previous report on annual reports it had commented on the court's delayed tabling times in recent years, and the presentation of this year's report marks a significant improvement.[10]

2.11      The committee takes a keen interest in the operations of the court and notes that the funding of the court and the maintenance of the building and surrounds continue to be ongoing issues. The report indicates that the court has commissioned the preparation of a management plan covering these issues.[11]

2.12      The court again reported an operating loss. The operating loss for the 2009-10 financial year was $0.574 million, compared to $1,493,850 for the previous year. The Chief Justice noted in his overview:

The Court has informed the Attorney-General that marginal operating losses are likely to continue in future years.  Much of this was related to increased building repairs and maintenance costs.[12]

2.13      The report further advised that the court has again sought approval of the Attorney-General for a further operating loss in 2010-11 and that:

Action to ensure the adequacy of the Court's future funding continued during 2009-10, with the involvement of the Attorney-General's and Finance and Deregulation portfolios.[13]

2.14      The committee will continue to monitor this issue closely.

2.15      The annual report also notes that repair and maintenance work on elements of the court's roof and windows continued throughout 2009-10 and will continue into the next year. Similarly, the rectification of the forecourt and cascade waterfall defects is also scheduled to be completed in 2010-11.[14]

2.16      The Portfolio Budget Statement 2009-10 (PBS) for the court outlines the transition to the new program reporting framework, that is, from outcomes and outputs to outcomes and programs.[15] However, the annual report still includes a reference to the court's 'outputs and outcomes' for 2009-10.[16]

2.17      In that context, the committee notes that the court's outcome is not actually identified in the report until the section entitled 'Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the High Court of Australia' at page 55.

2.18      The PBS for the court includes a program deliverable for Program 1.1 – The High Court decides cases arising in its original and appellate jurisdictions.[17] While the annual report does include details of activity of the court during the year, including judicial workload, it does not appear to explicitly report against the 'program deliverable' as listed in the PBS.

2.19      The PBS for the court does not include key performance indicators to be reported against in its annual report. The committee notes that the other courts within the Attorney-General's Portfolio do provide key performance indicators in their PBS which are reported on in their annual reports.[18]

2.20      The committee considers performance reporting in annual reports to be a crucial element of the accountability framework and closely monitors agencies' approaches in their annual reports. Although the Requirements for Annual Reports do not apply to the High Court, the committee notes that:

The 'clear read' between PB Statements and annual reports is an essential part of the accountability system that compares budgeted targets and figures to those actually achieved, and places a strong emphasis on compatibility between the two documents regarding budget and performance information.[19]

2.21      The committee considers the report of the High Court of Australia to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA)

2.22      The 2009-10 annual report of the Office of the MARA was presented on 29 October 2010.

2.23      This is the first report of the Office since it was incorporated into the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 1 July 2009 as a discrete office. As noted earlier in this report, the Office of the MARA now presents annual reporting information in two places, as part of the DIAC annual report and as a discrete report of the Office.

2.24      This report is prepared in accordance with section 322 of the Migration Act 1958.  The Office states in its letter of transmittal that this report provides additional information to that contained in the DIAC Annual Report 2009-10 (which was examined earlier in the committee's report).

2.25      In accordance with the recommendations of the 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession (the review), an advisory board was established during the reporting period. The board replaces the regulatory system previously administered by the Migration Institute of Australia.[20] The Chairman of the Office of the MARA, Mr Robert Cornall AO, explained that:

The diverse skills and experience of advisory board members provide the CEO with the opportunity to test and evaluate policy ideas and options in a way that cannot be achieved solely with the Office of the MARA staff.[21]

2.26      The Chief Executive Officer, Ms Christine Sykes, reported a smooth transition to an independent office attached to the DIAC, and a successful first year of operation.[22]

2.27      The report provided good coverage of the status of the implementation of 57 recommendations for reform that came out of the review. It was reported that 21 recommendations were finalised or substantially completed, 20 were in progress and 16 were unable to be progressed as they depended on legislative change or needed further research.[23]

2.28      One reform that has been implemented was the raising of English language standards for the migration agents profession from an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score of six to seven. This higher standard of English proficiency was introduced for initial registration applicants on 1 January 2010. It was reported that this new requirement has been introduced 'fairly and flexibly', but that the Office is aware that there is concern from some sectors in the profession about the recommendation to extend the higher English language standards to existing registered agents. The report further noted that an impact study will be undertaken to assist with transition arrangements.[24]

2.29      The operational reports in the annual report contain useful details on activities of the Office, including results against performance standards. The annual report also presented results against performance targets for registration processing, managing complaints, and professional development.

2.30      The committee notes that some of the Office's performance targets for time periods for the processing of applications for completion of initial and repeat registrations were not consistently met during the reporting period. The Office indicated that this was 'due to a number of factors including an increased number of applications received, staff turnover and resolution of old cases.'[25] It was further noted that the Office has introduced processes to manage the registration applications of agents both efficiently and with integrity.[26]

2.31      Results of performance relating to time periods for the completion of complaint processes were also not met. It was advised that this was the result of the Office focussing on finalising older and more complex complaints in 2009-10.[27] The committee will continue to monitor the Office's performance standards for complaints processing in future reports.

2.32      The committee is of the view that the annual report of the Office of the MARA is of a high standard and, accordingly, considers it to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page