Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following reports: Report 436: Review of the 2011-12 Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report; and Report 437: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 2 to 10 (2012-13).

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers.

by leave—The first report I have tabled today is the committee's Review of the 2011-12 Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report. This was the fifth annual major projects report to be produced by the audit office and the DMO. This year's report covers 29 projects with a combined budget of over $47 billion. The committee's aim in reviewing the MPR is to help to maximise transparency and accountability in the Defence acquisition process. The committee has made a range of recommendations directed towards this. Out of courtesy, the committee's deputy chair will shortly seek leave to make some additional comments on this report and its recommendations. I will focus my comments on the review of the Auditor-General's reports on the Indigenous programs.

The committee reviewed three audit reports on government programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians—the second report that I have tabled today. These are important days for Australia as we try to reconcile many issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and how Australian public policy does or does not deliver. Want for better is strong, and effort is commendable. Despite more success stories in recent times in service delivery and community empowerment, the frustrations of failure remain unacceptably high.

On reviewing nine reports presented to the parliament by the Auditor-General between August and November 2012 the committee concentrated its detailed scrutiny on an audit of the Australian government coordination arrangements for Indigenous programs. The committee extended the scope of its inquiry to include two other audit reports tabled by the Auditor-General earlier in 2012 which were similarly focused on the delivery of services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The committee chose to focus on this topic due to: firstly, our responsibility to verify that the large amounts of government spending in this area are efficient and effective; secondly, the need to make sure public policy is helping to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the best way possible; and, thirdly, the fact that the focus on coordination issues gets to the heart of what needs to be done to improve the availability and accessibility of services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

A key message from the committee's review of the three audits was the need for stronger, clearer and more effective leadership across government. This requires a lead agency for Indigenous affairs with authority, and a clear mandate to oversee expenditure, monitor outcomes, define priorities and drive actions at a whole-of-government level. FaHCSIA has made commendable progress recently in approving the level of coordination between government agencies. However, the committee was not convinced that the current arrangements provided the authority needed to drive outcomes as effectively as possible. With this in mind, the committee has recommended that the Prime Minister commission a review of leadership and collaboration arrangements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, with a goal of strengthening the authority of the lead agency to drive outcomes across departments. The committee has also recommended an explicit, whole-of-government strategy for: capacity development to overcome the current, piecemeal approach to this issue; improvements to the availability of location based data on Indigenous expenditure and outcomes; updates on efforts to measure outcomes in priority remote service delivery communities; and options to be pursued for improving Indigenous representation in decision-making processes.

Of course, what matters most is results. As a nation we are progressing on a long road of correcting open wounds of the past and finding ways to walk together in the future. For all of us, an Australian culture celebrating 40,000 years has so much more strength than one confined to 200-odd years. Finding ways to achieve this under, within and around existing Crown law is our great challenge. I am pleased that there have recently been signs of real progress being made in some areas. Sustained efforts to improve leadership and coordination in Indigenous service delivery will be central to this progress being built upon into the future.

On behalf of the committee I sincerely thank the organisations and individuals who participated in this inquiry for their time and their valuable input. I also thank the committee secretariat once again for its very good work in putting up with all committee MPs. I commend the reports to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—As the chair of the committee has just mentioned, the 2011-12 Major Projects Report was the fifth to be produced by the Defence Materiel Organisation in conjunction with the Australian National Audit Office. Over the past five years, the report has grown into a valuable tool for enhancing the transparency and accessibility of information available on Australia's largest defence projects. The committee's review of the 2011-12 MPR consisted of a public hearing attended by the DMO and the Audit Office, and a range of written questions to the DMO.

This year's Major Projects Report included the results of a survey of external stakeholders, commissioned by the DMO, on the use by and value of the report. Although the response rate to the survey was low, the results indicate that the MPR is generally seen as a valuable asset for improving the accessibility of information. However, the results also suggest that more can be done to improve the transparency, clarity and accuracy of information in the report. Improving these aspects of the report was the focus of the committee's recommendations in the report tabled today.

The committee's review also examined the presentation of financial information in the report; project schedule slippage; and DMO governance and business processes. The committee has made recommendations aimed at: supporting the development of meaningful project financial assurance statements; disclosing information on the expenditure of project contingency funds; improving consistency in the application of project 'maturity scores'; and taking a more strategic approach to business systems improvements.

The committee also examined the issue of enhancing the existing level of public reporting on the DMO's sustainment of capability functions. This is an area I am particularly interested in. Sustainment is expected to take up more than 50 per cent of the DMO's budget in 2013-14, yet the current level of reporting on sustainment is limited to a small amount of high-level performance and expenditure information on the DMO's top 20 sustainment products. Following questions from committee members, the DMO has now agreed to increase its reporting to cover the top 30 sustainment products. However, the committee remains concerned that, while this proposal may increase the breadth of reporting, it does nothing to increase its depth. The committee has recommended that the Department of Defence report back to it, prior to the final sittings of the 43rd Parliament in June, on how it intends to increase the transparency of sustainment information. There are examples, I understand, of other defence agencies throughout the world which provide a greater depth of information on sustainment elements of projects, acknowledging the sensitivity of these areas and the fact that quite often we are in operational environments here and so it is particularly important that we balance those sensitivities with the need for greater transparency.

In closing, I would like to sincerely thank agency representatives who were involved in this inquiry for their cooperative approach in support of the committee's role of scrutinising the spending of public money.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I present executive minutes on reports Nos 430 and 431 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.