CHAPTER 1


CHAPTER 1

ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES

1.1        The reports of the following statutory authorities for the financial year 2010-11 were referred to the committee for examination and report.

Attorney-General's Portfolio

  • Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights)
  • Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
  • Australian Crime Commission
  • Australian Human Rights Commission
  • Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council
  • Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
  • Commonwealth Ombudsman
  • Copyright Agency Limited
  • High Court of Australia
  • Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
  • Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

1.2        As in previous reports of the committee, it has decided to select a small number of annual reports for closer examination. On this occasion, the reports of the following agencies will be examined:

  • Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights);
  • Australian Human Rights Commission;
  • Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre;
  • High Court of Australia;
  • Office of the Australian Information Commissioner; and
  • Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

1.3        The committee has determined to consider, but not report on, the annual report of the Australian Crime Commission, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has specific responsibility for overseeing this agency.

1.4        The committee has similarly determined to consider, but not report on, the annual report of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has specific responsibility for overseeing this agency.

1.5        The annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman also stands referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee and, as this body sits within the Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio, the committee has also determined to consider, but not to report on, this annual report.

Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited

1.6        Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights), which trades as Screenrights, is a non-profit copyright collecting society for producers, distributors, script writers, music copyright owners in artistic works and sound recordings, and other rights owners in films.[1]

1.7        The work of Screenrights is to administer rights through a number of collective licensing services. Users employ these services to access audio-visual material, and copyright owners are paid for the use of their work. Therefore, Screenrights' core business is to administer 'institutional use of broadcast programming'.[2]

1.8        Screenrights' annual report was tabled in the House of Representatives on 16 February 2012 and tabled in the Senate on 28 February 2012. It was submitted and received by the Minister on 6 February 2012.

1.9        The company is limited by guarantee and, pursuant to section 34(2) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act), is a wholly-owned Commonwealth company. In the event of the company winding up the report notes its members' liability is $10 for each member. As at 30 June 2011, the company's total liability was $33,210 from 3,321 full members from 59 countries.[3] This is an increase from its liability of $31,450 from 3,145 members in 2010.[4]

1.10      The annual report of Screenrights needs to comply with Ministerial orders made under section 48 of the CAC Act, which are set out in the Commonwealth Companies (Annual Reporting) Orders 2011. The content of annual reports of Commonwealth companies is based on the reporting requirements under the Corporations Act 2001, in accordance with section 36 of the CAC Act. The reporting provisions for Screenrights are contained in sections 135R, 135ZZD, 135ZZV and 183D of the Copyright Act 1968.

1.11      The committee is disappointed to note that the 2010-11 annual report is missing some important information, such as a letter of transmittal, a contents page, a compliance index page and a glossary page. Inclusion of such information would have considerably assisted the committee in its examination of the report. The committee also considers that the report does not have a clear organisational structure and little indication of the enabling legislation under which Screenrights operates or the reporting requirements with which the annual report complies. Further, the size of the report does not conform to the usual annual report size dimension of B5, taking a more 'brochure-like' format; and information presented in colourful graphs could have been enhanced with the inclusion of accompanying headings.

1.12      Despite these issues, the committee is of the view that the mission statement in the report provides useful background information about the role and functions of Screenrights, its objectives, board members and company membership.  The financial statements and 'Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements' are also clearly set out and easy to follow.

1.13      In 2010-11, Screenrights reported a net operating loss of $229,690, which is an increase from the $63,150 loss reported in the preceding reporting period. The financial statements of subsidiaries were also included in the financial statements contained in the report.[5] However, the total income figure of $36.3 million reported in both the Chairman's note to members and the Chief Executive's report does not appear to match the total income of $36,596,199 contained in the report's statement of comprehensive income.[6]

1.14      In conclusion, the committee considers the annual report of Screenrights to be 'apparently satisfactory', but expresses some concerns over the clarity and accessibility of some information contained within it and the omission of some required information.

Australian Human Rights Commission

1.15         The annual report of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 1 November 2011. Its tabling occurred within 15 sitting days after its receipt by the Minister on 26 October 2011.

1.16      The report begins with a snapshot of the AHRC's broad role, functions and vision, and moves to information about its organisational structure. Also included is a profile of each of the four commissioners overseeing human rights; sex; age; disability and race discrimination; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice matters.

1.17      The inclusion of relevant legislation enriches the reader's overall understanding of the varied works and responsibilities of the AHRC, including its amicus curiae ('friend of the court') status.[7]  

1.18      Among some of the highlights and achievements for the 2010-11 period were:

  • amendments to the sex and age discrimination acts, including the creation of the new office of the Age Discrimination Commissioner with two individuals holding the respective offices within the AHRC;
  • the government's high uptake of the AHRC's recommendations to it during the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review, resulting in some recommendations being incorporated into the National Action Plan on Human Rights that forms part of the Australian Human Rights Framework;
  • the launch of a range of resources to assist Australia's Indigenous peoples to understand and protect their rights; and
  • the release of a guideline to assist people working in the building industry to better understand standards relating to disability access to premises.[8]

1.19      In the annual report, the AHRC continued to communicate its concerns about Australia's immigration detention system, and the rise in the number of people detained and incidences of self-harm among long-term detainees. Other concerns documented related to the conditions of some detention facilities, particularly those in remote locations or in locations with limited infrastructure or limited access to mental, health, education and communication services. The AHRC urged the government to expand its current program of community detention by utilising community-based alternatives, and advocated for the ratification and implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.[9]

1.20      Information on performance in the area of complaints services remained strong in this annual report. Key performance indicators used to assess performance are: timeliness, conciliation rate and service satisfaction. Results in all areas exceeded performance standards in 2010-11. The AHRC achieved a 94 per cent finalisation rate within 12 months for complaints, with an average of 5.8 months from time of lodgement to finalisation. This exceeds the set standard of 80 per cent. Likewise, satisfaction among survey respondents who reported they were satisfied with the AHRC's service was 94 per cent.[10] The report also contains a detailed breakdown of statistics on the different categories of complaints, demographic data and conciliation rates across the different categories of complaints.[11]

1.21      The current report is comparable to previous reports and generally complies with the Requirements for Annual Reports. In some areas, however, it continues to disappoint, particularly with regards to the non-inclusion of a mandatory list of requirements to assist in the report's examination. The committee has on previous occasions remarked on the absence of a compliance list, and even suggested its inclusion before it became a mandatory item.[12] The Requirements for Annual Reports state: 

The List of Requirements must be included as an appendix to the annual report. If an item specified in the checklist is not applicable to an agency, it should be reported as not applicable rather than omitted from the list. Agencies should include a column indicating the location of the information in the annual report.[13]

1.22      Another area previously commented upon by the committee relates to the general concern over accuracy and attention to detail.[14] For example, in the current annual report a table reflecting salary ranges and staffing statistics was incorrectly referenced to Appendix 6 instead of Appendix 4,[15] and Appendix 6 could not be located in the report. Also, complaint statistics and demographic data in 'Resolving discrimination and human rights issues' were incorrectly directed to Appendix 4 instead of Appendix 2.[16] Appendix 5 relating to consultancy services was referred to incorrectly as Appendix 7, with no Appendix 7 existing in the report.[17]

1.23      The AHRC's financial statements indicated the agency continued to operate at a loss of $230,000 for 2010-11.[18] This is a smaller loss compared to the $614,000 loss in 2009-10, but the committee could not locate any discussion in the body of the report to explain why this was the case.

1.24      The committee considers the annual report to be 'apparently satisfactory', but reiterates its concerns about the general quality of the report's accuracy, and suggests closer adherence to the Requirements for Annual Reports guidelines in the future.

Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre

1.25      Although the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre's (AUSTRAC) annual report was tabled in the Senate after 31 October 2011, the committee notes its tabling in the House of Representatives occurred before that date. The report's presentation to the Minister took place on 5 October 2011, ahead of the supplementary budget estimates hearings on 17 and 18 October 2011.

1.26      The Chief Executive Officer noted several areas of development and increased activity in 2010-11, including the agency's greater emphasis on assessing the transaction reporting performance of a broad range of regulated entities, receipt of increased volumes of transaction reports, increased funding for developing in-house systems to combat organised and other serious crimes across the whole-of-government, and its contribution to law enforcement operations.[19]

1.27      The reporting of financial transactions and irregular activities from industry is the core of AUSTRAC's intelligence work. For the review period, AUSTRAC reported a 104 per cent increase in the number of transaction reports received, leading to a total of almost 36 million reports detailing international transaction funds transfers. This increased volume corresponds with recent trends.[20]

1.28      AUSTRAC received $24 million funding over four years in the May 2010 budget to develop its own systems to enhance its financial intelligence and regulatory capabilities. One such system to be implemented was a new analytics solution which has resulted in more efficient extraction and analysis of data by AUSTRAC and its partner agencies.[21] 

1.29      Among AUSTRAC's contribution to law enforcement operations is its continued collaboration and cooperation with partner agencies to prevent and detect organised crimes. An example is the Australian Taxation Office's use of AUSTRAC information to investigate 1,619 cases with a value of $241.11 million in additional tax assessments.[22]

1.30      These activities dovetail with the agency's specific strategic priorities to: improve industry compliance; enhance 'financial intelligence'; build productive relationships; bolster the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime; strengthen corporate governance; and continue to improve as an agency through ongoing staff development and support over the same reporting period.[23]

1.31      The committee again commends AUSTRAC for consistently preparing a report of impressive standard. The report closely adheres to the Requirements for Annual Reports and includes suggested as well as mandatory information, including a compliance index. This assists in the examination of the report.

1.32      The agency's stated outcome-program structure in the overview is clearly articulated in its 2010-11 annual report. The program is made up of two components: the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulator (AML/CTF); and the financial intelligence unit (FIU).[24] AUSTRAC's performance information is presented in table formats that are clear, concise, and easy to follow; and includes measures of performance against program deliverables and key performance indicators as listed in the agency's Portfolio Budget Statements.

1.33      The addition of a reader's guide early in the report, as well as an explanation of terms used in both the body of the report and the Portfolio Budget Statements, enriches the quality of information presented. In 2010-11 there was one new deliverable and two new key performance indicators (KPIs) for the AML/CTF component. The new deliverable was 'transaction reporting among regulated population'[25] and the new KPIs were recognition of transaction reporting responsibilities, and volume and quality of transaction reporting among entities with obligations to report.[26]

1.34      The inclusion of five real-life case studies published in AUSTRAC typologies and case studies report 2011 demonstrates how partner agencies have incorporated AUSTRAC information to assist their business operations. These case studies, which represent a sample of AUSTRAC's work, cover serious crimes such as blackmail and extortion, fraud, human trafficking and servitude, and tax avoidance.[27] 

1.35      For 2010-11 AUSTRAC reported a net operating deficit of $2.2 million, compared to a surplus of $0.6 million in the 2009-10 preceding period. This deficit included $3.3 million of unfunded depreciation and amortisation expenses.[28]

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

High Court of Australia

1.37      The High Court of Australia's (High Court) annual report for 2010-11 is presented in accordance with section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. The High Court is not a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, due to its status under its enabling legislation. [29] Therefore, the Requirements for Annual Reports do not apply to the High Court's annual report. Nonetheless, section 3(4) of the Requirements for Annual Reports provides:

In the case of an agency (including an executive agency established under section 65 of the Public Service Act 1999) that is neither prescribed under the FMA Act nor comes within the CAC Act, these Requirements may be used to the extent that they are consistent with any reporting requirements contained in the agency's own legislation (if any).[30]

1.38      The annual report of the High Court was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 21 November 2011 (and presented out of session in the Senate on 18 November 2011), and complies with the High Court's own reporting requirements.

1.39      The court reported a smaller operating loss for 2010-11 than for the preceding period. For the year ending 2010-11, the court received an operating appropriation of $13.017 million and reported an operating deficit of $0.412 million.[31]

1.40      In a positive update to last year's financial concerns related to the funding of the court and the maintenance of the building and surrounds, the court received an increase in funding. The Chief Justice, in his overview, noted:

The Court is grateful for the announcement by the Government in the  2011-12 Budget that it will receive an additional $1.5 million in base funding beginning in 2011-12 to enable it to meet its operational costs and to maintain services.[32]

1.41      Some of the court's maintenance works include work to address 'significant health and safety and structural issues'[33] in the building forecourt, the cascade waterfall and the court precinct. The restoration and repair projects are funded from the 2010 Budget allocation of $4.5 million for capital funding. Projects still in progress include work to the cascade waterfall, the forecourt's interface with the National Portrait Gallery and, pending approval from the National Capital Authority, rectification to the general western forecourt area.[34]

1.42      The Portfolio Budget Statements for 2010-11 shows a $3.492 million reduction in appropriation revenue from 2009-10. This is attributed to the removal of funding for depreciation.[35] Almost half of the equity injection the court received in 2010-11 ($4.330 million from $8.731 million) went into addressing safety and related structural issues.[36]

1.43      The committee notes that some issues commented on previously have resurfaced in the High Court's 2010-11 report. In the committee's last annual report, the committee made the observation that the court's outcome – to interpret and uphold the Australian Constitution and perform the functions of the ultimate appellate court in Australia – was not actually made clear in the 2009-10 annual report from the outset and was only identified near the end in the 'Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the High Court of Australia.' This was also the case in the 2010-11 annual report.[37]

1.44      Another issue was the lack of explicit reporting of activities against 'program deliverables' as listed in the Portfolio Budget Statements in the annual report. Also, the Portfolio Budget Statements do not contain key performance indicators to be reported against in the High Court's annual reports.  Despite this, the committee considers that the report does provide a clear and concise account of the year in review, including detailed information on the various activities of the court, statistics for judicial workload, and the High Court's public education and visitors programs.

1.45      Even so, the committee wishes to reiterate the importance of performance reporting in annual reports. This provides the relevant agency with an accountability framework as well as a monitoring mechanism of activities and practices. Again, the committee notes that although the Requirements for Annual Reports do not apply to the High Court:

The 'clear read' between Portfolio Budget 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.[38]

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

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

1.47      Although the annual report of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) was tabled in the Senate on 7 February 2012 (presented out of session on 20 December 2011), it was tabled in the House of Representatives on 31 October 2011.

1.48      The OAIC commenced operations under the Australian Information Commission Act 2010 on 1 November 2010; upon its commencement the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) was integrated into this newly formed statutory body. The agency is headed by the Australian Information Commissioner, whose functions are to provide strategic and policy advice on information management to the Australian Government.

1.49      The Information Commissioner is supported by the Privacy Commissioner and the Freedom of Information Commissioner, whose respective functions are to look after the proper handling of personal information in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (and other relevant legislation) and to protect the public's right of access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The 2010-11 annual report is the first annual report from this newly formed statutory body.

1.50      The report noted in its corrigendum that the OAIC had one outcome for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 June 2011: provision of public access to Commonwealth Government information, protection of individuals' personal information, and performance of information commissioner, freedom of information and privacy functions. The committee understands that, since the OAIC is a newly established body, providing comprehensive information about the agency's outcome and program structure may be difficult during the agency's initial establishment phase. The committee looks forward to examining future reports containing detailed information from the agency.

1.51      The 2010-11 report examines the former Office of the OPC's performance against its stated outcome before its integration into the OAIC. The report also reviews the OAIC's performance during its establishment phase.

1.52      The annual report of the OAIC is well-structured and easy to follow. The list of requirements with page references assists in the examination of the report. The committee commends the OAIC for its inclusion of many suggested items in the Requirements for Annual Reports.[39]

1.53      The report provides a useful overview of the OAIC's performance to date. Chapters 3 and 4 cover FOI and information policy, while chapter 5 covers the performance of the former OPC prior to its incorporation into OAIC. The information provided complies with the requirement in section 30(3) of the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 that the report include freedom of information and privacy matters.

1.54      Information relating to the former OPC's 2010-11 Portfolio Budget Statements and the outcome and program structure are located in Appendix 1.  This provides a transparent comparison between budgeted targets and figures, and results achieved.[40] Some information in the 'Key Performance Indicators 2010-11 Target' table could be better presented, however, as it unclear whether performance results have met stated targets.[41] Further, the report states that the OPC was 'only in existence from 1 July 2010 to 31 October 2010' so information required to draw accurate comparisons to performance in previous years is not possible.[42] 

1.55      The report has generally complied with the list of Requirements for Annual Reports. The committee notes that corrections of errors in the OPC's 2009-10 annual report have been included in the 2010-11 report.

1.56      The committee considers the OAIC's annual report to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

1.57      The annual report of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) was tabled in the House of Representatives on 13 October 2011 and in the Senate on 1 November 2011. It was received by the Minister on 29 September 2011.

1.58      The committee commends the CDPP for a report of a high standard which is comprehensive in information, and features a clear and concise style that is easy to follow.

1.59      The Director of Public Prosecution's (Director) review noted several staff movements and departures in the CDPP, including a leadership change in three regional offices across the country. The contributions of all departing officers were acknowledged.

1.60      Also noted in the Director's review was the CDPP's close working relationships with other government agencies. The office received briefs of evidence from 36 Commonwealth, and state and territory agencies and noted that support from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has resulted in a significant increase in people smuggling prosecutions under the Migration Act 1958.[43]

1.61      The committee is pleased to note that, in examining the report against the list of requirements under the Requirements of Annual Reports, all mandatory items were included and a number of suggested items were also added.  The effective use of   real-life prosecution cases throughout the report helped to illustrate the diverse areas of practice the CDPP deals with, and paints a vivid picture of the work undertaken.

1.62      Under the agency's overview, the outcome-program chart 2010-11 structure is clear and consistent with information in the 2010-11 Portfolio Budget Statements.

1.63      The CDPP's appropriations for 2010-11 decreased from $105.421 million in 2009-10 to $95.927 million in 2010-11. The report notes that the government has put in place interim funding arrangements to enable the CDPP to continue its work and to meet the requirements of the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. Further decreases in future appropriations and financial statements as appear in the Portfolio Budget Statements are also included in the report. The review of CDPP funding arrangements was not complete at the time of publication of this report.[44]

1.64      The inclusion of statistics and performance indicators shows that the CDPP has met all prosecution performance indicators in 2010-11. The CDPP achieved a 99 per cent rate (4026 from 4083) of successful prosecutions, 100 per cent rate (6 from 6) of prosecution sentence appeals in summary prosecutions being upheld, and a 99 per cent rate (478 from 485) for defendants in defended committals resulting in a committal order.[45] Similarly presented data for previous years provides trend information. A detailed breakdown of information on prosecution processes across a range of criminal offences, and duration of trials, provides a comprehensive background.[46]

1.65      The committee considers the annual report of the CDPP to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page