Chapter 1
Budget Estimates 2011–12
1.1
On 10 May 2011, the Senate referred to the Finance and Public
Administration Legislation Committee (the Committee), the following documents for
examination and report:
- particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending
on 30 June 2012;
- particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the
year ending on 30 June 2012; and
- particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the
parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2012.
Portfolio coverage
1.2
The Committee has responsibility for examining the expenditure and
outcomes of the:
- Parliament[1];
-
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, including the Department of
Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government; and
- Finance and Deregulation portfolio.
1.3
Appendix 1 lists the departments, agencies, authorities and companies
under the portfolios mentioned above.
Portfolio Budget Statements
1.4
There were few changes to the portfolios under the Committee's oversight
in the respective Portfolio Budget Statements. The only notable change was to
the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government
(DRARDLG) following the natural disasters of late 2010-early 2011. The Prime
Minister announced on 7 February 2011, new governance arrangements within
the department to provide coordination and oversight of the Commonwealth Government's
contribution to the recovery and reconstruction effort.
1.5
The Commonwealth National Disaster Recovery Taskforce (the Taskforce) was
established to provide strategic direction and oversight of the Commonwealth
Government's contribution to reconstruction efforts in response to the
disasters. The Taskforce also provides secretariat support to the Australian
Government Reconstruction Inspectorate chaired by former Federal Minister for Finance,
Mr John Fahey AC.[2]
Hearings
1.6
The Committee held public hearings on Monday, 23 May through to Thursday,
26 May 2011. Over the course of the four days' hearings—totalling over 37 hours—the
Committee took evidence from the President of the Senate, Senator the Hon John
Hogg; Senator the Hon Chris Evans, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills,
Jobs and Workplace Relations; Senator the Hon Mark Arbib, Minister for Sport, Minister
for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development and Minister for Social
Housing and Homelessness;[3]
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry, Minister for Small Business;[4]
and Senator the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Finance and Deregulation, together
with officers of the departments and agencies concerned. The Committee
expresses its appreciation for the assistance of the President, Ministers,
Departmental Secretaries and the officers who appeared before it.
1.7
Old Parliament House was the only agency released from the hearings
without examination.
1.8
The following agencies were dismissed prior to the hearings: Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner; National Australia Day Council;
Australian Sports Commission; Australian Sports Foundation Ltd; Australian
Sports Anti-Doping Authority; Australian National Maritime Museum; Australian
Film, Television and Radio School; Bundanon Trust; Australia Business Arts
Foundation; Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation; Australian River Co Ltd;
and ASC Pty Ltd.
1.9
The Hansard transcripts of evidence are available on the internet at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/index.htm
1.10
In accordance with Standing Order 26, the Committee is required to set a
date for the lodgement of written answers and additional information. The
Committee resolved that written answers and additional information be submitted
by Friday, 8 July 2011.
1.11
Further written information from departments and agencies will be
tabled, as received, in the Senate. This information is available on the Committee's
website: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/index.htm
Procedural and other matters
Requests for officers to appear
1.12
The Committee requested the appearance at the estimates hearings of Mr
John Fahey, recently appointed chair of the Australian Government
Reconstruction Inspectorate and Mr Bret Walker, the new Independent
National Security Legislation Monitor. Mr Fahey was unable to attend the
hearing due to prior commitments, however, Mr Walker attended to provide
evidence and the Committee thanks him for making himself available.
Provision of answers to questions
on notice
1.13
At the commencement of the estimates hearings a number of answers to
questions on notice remained outstanding from the Additional Estimates hearings
of February 2011. The Committee had set 15 April 2011 for the date by which
answers were to be provided.
1.14
When the Finance and Deregulation portfolio appeared on 25 May 2011,
nearly six weeks after the date for receipt of answers, seven answers remained
outstanding. In particular, the Committee's attention was drawn to an unanswered
question concerning the provision of legal advice by the Director of Public
Prosecutions to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). At the Committee's
hearing of 22 February, the AEC initially sought to make a claim of public
interest immunity in relation to the provision of this advice. The Minister
then took the question on notice.[5]
1.15
During the hearing of 26 May, the AEC indicated that the response to the
question had been provided to the Special Minister of State in mid March 2011.
Following consideration of this matter by the Committee, the Chair expressed
concern that answers to questions from the Additional Estimates remained
outstanding. The Chair indicated the seriousness of the matter and requested
that the answers be provided as soon as possible.
1.16
All remaining answers from the Finance and Deregulation portfolio were provided
to the Committee on Friday, 27 May. The Committee acknowledges the speed with
which the answers were provided following the hearing, however the Committee notes
that the estimates process is an important accountability mechanism and
committees expect timely responses to the questions put to departments and
agencies.
Evidence provided by the Department
of Parliamentary Services
1.17
The examination of the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) again canvassed
issues in relation to the sale, in late 2010, of billiard tables from
Parliament House.
1.18
At the Additional Estimates, DPS indicated that its policy was to
require a heritage assessment of any items being disposed of, or declared
surplus, and that in the case of the billiard tables, they were assessed as having
no heritage value.[6]
In an answer to a question on notice seeking the provision of the heritage
assessment, DPS provided a copy of the 'Declaration of surplus or unserviceable
items form' dated 6 July 2010 and the asset register with an undated hand written
annotation.[7]
1.19
During questioning on the asset register and the hand written annotation
provided, DPS indicated that '[t]he recollection of the officer is that it was
signed after 21 February, so it was after the estimates hearing in February'.[8]
In relation to whether a heritage assessment had been undertaken, Mr David
Kenny, DPS, stated that 'I think it is clear that the advice at the last
estimates was not correct, that a heritage assessment had already taken place'.[9]
Further, Mr Kenny commented:
The realisation that the heritage assessment had not taken
place—I became aware of that at about 20 past one this afternoon...there was
some more investigation being done internally as to the history, noting that
the history of all the billiard tables, in terms of the records available to
us, was not clear—therefore it took a little bit longer to work through—but at
about 20 past one I was advised that the heritage assessment had not been done
at the time of the sale.[10]
1.20
The Committee has requested that DPS provide the original version of the
Declaration of surplus or unserviceable items form and the asset register with
the heritage assessment annotation. The Committee will then consider the matter
further.
Australian National Audit Office
1.21
During the Committee's examination of the Australian National Audit
Office (ANAO), the Committee canvassed the ANAO's role in auditing third party
contractors. When questioned on the impact this would have on the ANAO's
workload, the Auditor-General stated:
I have said to the public accounts committee that we would
not be looking for any additional resources for this purpose. We currently do
somewhere between 45 and 55 performance audits a year, and I at least saw it as
a substitution issue. If we were going to do further work, in particular
audits, then we would adjust our program elsewhere...It is all relative.[11]
1.22
The Committee welcomes the expansion of the ANAO's role in relation to third
party contractors in Government projects. The Committee will continue to monitor
the effect of these third party audits on the ANAO's workload and resources.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page