Cabinet secrecy for the National Cabinet-maybe, maybe not

Seven months after its formation, the National Cabinet has made its way into the just published new edition of the Cabinet Handbook. (Pages 30-31) but is still to get a mention in the Government Directory

Anyone looking for an explanation about what makes the NC and a range of committees and groups that come within its scope (The Council on Federal Financial Relations, any other committees "as required" that the NC establishes, and any National Cabinet Reform Committees) part of the Federal Government Cabinet will be disappointed by the entry in the Handbook.

There is nothing in the National Cabinet section that adds anything to the Prime Minister's explanation that it's part of the Cabinet because he, presumably supported in this by the Premiers and First Ministers of the states and territories, decided it is, and say so.

According to the entry the "National Cabinet operates according to the longstanding Westminster principles of collective responsibility and solidarity." 

Those principles as explained elsewhere in the Handbook (Page 9) are hard to reconcile with what has been on public display in the operation of the National Cabinet. For example:

• "(O)nce decisions are arrived at and announced they are supported by all ministers."

• "(A) decision of the Cabinet is binding on all members of the Government regardless of whether they were present when the decision was taken."

• "The aim is to reach some form of consensus so that the Prime Minister, as chair of the Cabinet, can summarise what the collective decision is for recording in the Cabinet minute.

• "Members of the Cabinet must publicly support all Government decisions made in the Cabinet, even if they do not agree with them."
  

• "Cabinet ministers cannot dissociate themselves from, or repudiate the decisions of their Cabinet colleagues unless they resign from the Cabinet."
  

• "It is the Prime Minister’s role as Chair of the Cabinet, where necessary, to enforce Cabinet solidarity."
  

• Observance of the two principles is "entirely dependent on a commitment to three important operational values: consultation; confidentiality; and respect forthe primacy of Cabinet decisions." 

Officials from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Government Solicitor and Attorney General's Department were not able to explain more fully in Senate Estimates this week.

PMC 

Senator Siewert .. Has.. the claim that national cabinet has the same provisions as cabinet, been raised by the states and agreed to by the states and territories?

Ms Foster  (Deputy Secretary) : National cabinet was established by agreement of all first ministers, and they agreed that they wished national cabinet to be established as a subcommittee of the federal cabinet with all of the same provisions applying to it.

Senator SIEWERT: Under what legal basis is that? Just them agreeing to it doesn't make it so.

Ms Foster : Senator, as you know, cabinet operates by longstanding convention, and this committee was formed by the agreement of all the members under those provisions.

Prompting Senator Wong to comment

They're out there smashing each other publicly. Ministers generally don't do that. And it's not bound by consensus. Sorry, but I just think you shouldn't give evidence that's not correct. It might be the Prime Minister's line, but you should not give that evidence. 

Later questioning saw officials explain the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and
the COVID committee in preparing material for national cabinet consideration, are subject to the cabinet confidentiality provisions.

Attorney General's Portfolio 

Answers to questions by the Australian Government Solicitor Mr Kingston bear a close relationship to a Yes Minister script. Those from the Secretary of the Department Mr Moraitis more closely resemble Sergeant Schultz- "I know nothing". Defies summarising. Full text below. 

Next-the Tribunal

Senator Patrick is in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal challenging an FOI refusal of access to documents on the basis that national cabinet is covered by the cabinet document exemption. 

In this post in June I suggested the National Cabinet lacked the essential characteristics of a cabinet that an earlier Tribunal decision described as relevant in deciding whether the exemption applies. 

Senator Carr in estimates cited Constitutional law professor Cheryl Saunders saying, 'It's impossible for a meeting of the first ministers to operate according to the longstanding Westminster principles of collective responsibility as is claimed in the new Cabinet Handbook."

Time will tell. 

Senate estimates in a week when decisions needed on open government in practice

Senate Estimates hearings get underway in Canberra today. 

Let's hope for clarification on where Australia stands with the Open Government Partnership and the future for the Office of Australian Information Commissioner.

Estimates kick off today with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

PM&C now has responsibility for the Open Government Partnership. A response is still outstanding to the request from the OGP Steering Committee in July that in light of disappointment at the failure to follow through on the notice of intention to join in May 2013 Australia recommit to membership before the Global Summit in Mexico on 27 October.

As former Victorian Supreme Court justices Tim Smith, David Harper and Stephen Charles write in Fairfax Media today on the OGP issue, "Time for Turnbull to step up on open government."

The Office of Australian Information Commissioner is listed for hearing on Tuesday 20 October.

The day that Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim's appointment as acting Australian Information Commissioner for a three month period expires. As the Attorney General Brandis said at the time, the appointment was "while the Government considers options for the future of the Information Commissioner position."

But not a peep from Attorney General Brandis since about what the government plans with the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill that would abolish the Information Commissioner position. The bill remains on the Senate Bills List where it has been since October last year. 

Abolishing the office and the Information Commissioner position does not fit with the Prime Minister's ambition to lead an accountable open government.

Let's clear up these uncertainties this week and get on with it.

AG Brandis not for turning on bid to abolish Office of Australian Information Commissioner

Senator Brandis at Senate Estimates late on Tuesday said he's still aiming to get rid of the independent statutory officer responsible for championing transparent government, an officer who undertakes other important functions including non litigious free review of agency decisions under the FOI act.

This despite the fact that votes from Labor, The Greens and the crossbenches to support the move weren't there last December and its difficult to discern any change in sentiment since. 

Just about everyone outside government who looks into the proposal thinks it's a bad move unsupported by evidence and out of step with trends in good practice thinking about open transparent government in Australia and internationally.

Monday and Tuesday were long days as the Senate Estimates hearing for the Attorney General's portfolio proceeded. 

The Australian Human Rights Commission with the president in the line of fire, proposed national security legislation and a myriad other issues were traversed in the course of many hours of Q and occasional A.

But at 9.48 pm on Tuesday the Office of Australian Information Commissioner finally got the call.

Interest in proceedings had diminished  by this time with Chair Senator McDonald, ALP Senator  Collins and Liberal Democrat Senator Leonhjelm the only committee members left standing. Well sitting to be more precise.

You can read the 24 minute hearing here.

Attorney General Brandis and Matt Minogue of the AGD made it clear that the the bill to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner still before the Senate continues to reflect the government's position; that the office, funded in the 2014-15 budget until 31 December and now with whatever funds were left for general functions from that date and for privacy functions until 30 June must continue to do what it can to carry out its statutory FOI, privacy and digital information policy functions without supplementary funding; and things will stay that way until the bill comes on for consideration and its fate determined. 

When that might be Attorney General Brandis has no idea. It's "a matter for the Manager of Government Business."

The OAIC has closed the Canberra office, the Information Commissioner works from home and the office has seven staff working on FOI matters. A year ago it had 20.

"The office continues to receive inquiries, complaints and IC review applications under the FOI Act, and these are dealt with under arrangements that we have published on our website. FOI matters are currently being handled by a small team in the Sydney office under the supervision of the assistant commissioner for dispute resolution and the Information Commissioner. In summary, FOI complaints are being transferred to the Ombudsman's office; Information Commissioner reviews are being triaged by our office so that where we can expedite a matter we do so; and, for the more complex or voluminous ones, we work with the applicants for these to be referred to the AAT."

With the sword of Damocles hanging over the OAIC since the unexpected announcement in May 2014 of intention to close the office Acting Information Commissioner Pilgrim (the only member of the top echelon not working from home) saluted the staff that have battled on regardless:

in respect of all of our functions, I would personally like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ongoing commitment and professionalism of the staff in our office, who have continued to work tirelessly during very uncertain times. And I will add that in my 31 years in the Public Service I have not seen a better demonstration of and upholding of the Public Service values.

As for the Attorney General it's nothing to do with him. It's all Labor's fault

if these are perceived to be problems, then these perceived problems would all disappear if the opposition would support the bill so it could be passed...
As I was saying, if the government had an indication from the opposition of what its position was, and if the opposition, which has had plenty of time to consider this, indicated its support for the bill, then the bill could be progressed through the Senate very soon.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I do not think there has been any uncertainty about the opposition's position here. I think the issue is—well, I will ask: is it true that the government has offered crossbenchers a comprehensive review of the FOI system if they support the bill? And why instead will you not conduct that review before you abolish the Information Commissioner?

Senator Brandis: Surely you would not expect me to reveal private conversations that the government might have had with individual Senators. Surely you would not expect that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I would not be surprised by anything that you might do after today, Senator Brandis. I would not be surprised by anything.

If the government isn't prepared to bring the bill on for debate, maybe Labor, The Greens and the crossbenches should. 

If its voted down the government might finally be shamed into adequately funding our champion of open transparent government despite its distaste for such ideas.

In an answer tabled in response to Question 204 from Senator Collins taken on notice in December about funding for the OAIC beyond December, that didn't get a mention during the hearing, the Department  stated

"The cost implications from the continued operation of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner beyond 1 January 2015 will be determined as part of the Government’s Budget processes."

In light of yesterday's testimony they can't mean 2014-15 budget processes.

AGD appears to be struggling with an answer to another Senator Collins question from last December - the other countries that have an independent FOI commissioner. Q57 remains one of few unanswered two months later. 

Last time I did some digging it was around the 40 mark, although with 100 countries now having an FOI act it might be much higher. 

Oh and they don't have to look far for local adherents to the idea: Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Western Australia, Northern Territory and the ACT have information or FOI/RTI commissioners. In Tasmania the Ombudsman carries the can while in South Australia the Ombudsman has the review function and the former ombudsman there now Queensland Integrity Commissioner recommended adoption of the FOI commissioner model.

It's clear who is out of step here.

DFAT waiting for Finance to ring before opening the OGP file.

 Silly old duffer!

Here I've been rabbiting on for three years about Australia stepping up to join the Open Government Partnership, thinking that apart from the value we would derive from a civil society-government partnership to improve transparency accountability and public participation in Australia, that there were good foreign policy reasons why we should stand with (currently) 63 other countries who share this commitment.

I wasn't put off when it emerged that Secretary of State Clinton received no response to her invitation in August 2011 to then Foreign Minister Rudd to join; that then minister Brendan O'Connor rejected an AGD recommendation that Australia announce its intention to join in October 2011 when President Obama visited, and DFAT apparently was nowhere to be seen or heard; or when DFAT took 10 weeks last year to tell me it had no document that listed the pros and cons of Australia joining.

No I was simply heartened when then Foreign Minister Carr said he agreed in principle that Australia should join, when Secretary Varghese told Senator Faulkner that he would ensure the department went into meetings of officials to get the membership issue sorted quickly, and when then Attorney General Dreyfus made the announcement of our intention to join in May last year.

True I've been worried since about silence and disappointed with the 'clarification' of Australia's position by Minister for Finance Cormann in Estimates that "we have not decided yet on whether we will or will not proceed with that intention to join..."

But I'd thought as the Prime Minister headed to Indonesia, France, Canada and the US - all members of the OGP and Indonesia the current lead co-chair - that DFAT would ensure there was something in the briefing book about this, given that President SBY at a conference a month ago to which PM Abbott was invited but couldn't attend called on others in the Asia Pacific to join, and Presidents Obama and Harper of Canada put their names to a statement of support for the OGP when they met earlier this year.

DFAT-well at least when I was there for 14 years a long time ago- was good at linking the foreign and domestic policy dots, I thought.

Wishful or dated thinking as it turns out. DFAT only thinks about the international dimensions once we decide to join!

Senate Estimates
Senator Faulkner in Estimates for Department of Foreign affairs and Trade last week asked  "how DFAT is engaging on this OGP issue, which obviously has foreign policy implications." 

DFAT Secretary Varghese flicked it to Ms Katrina Cooper, First Assistant Secretary, Legal Division: 

Ms Cooper:... it is being handled by the section which takes care of freedom of information and privacy.(Comment: With all due respect hardly likely to have policy heft or influence on an international organisation issue)...We are standing by waiting to see where the process heads now. Obviously we are still waiting to see whether or not we will join the OPG and, if we do, we will be engaged....
 Senator Faulkner:....could I ask, Mr Varghese, if there are any resources at all in DFAT being used to look at the international policy, the foreign policy aspects of the OGP. The OGP is something that has developed a head of steam in the international community—I think that is a fair thing to say. My question to you just goes to whether DFAT has got any engagement at all on the international policy issues.  
Mr Varghese : I would defer to Ms Cooper, if she is able to assist on that. It is not something I have spent time on personally...  
Ms Cooper : Senator, we are not engaging in any separate process as an agency. We are engaging with other agencies and through the lead agency on this process. 
Senator FAULKNER: So that means you have 60-odd nations having a major international conference on Australia's doorstep—it does not matter where it is, but it is our near neighbour with whom we have such a very important relationship—in Bali. Our prime minister is invited to it. We have, as you would know, Mr Varghese, from previous evidence at this estimates committee, seen the Secretary of State of the US encouraging Australia's involvement. We have had a senior minister in the UK government doing the same. I am surprised that those elements effectively receive no focus at all from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So here we have a movement that appears to be growing in strength in the international community—and that is the only point I am making—but no assessment or analysis—except involvement is not a core issue for your department. Involvement and being the lead agency belongs to another department—the Department of Finance. It is those international elements that I am referring to. And I would have thought within DFAT those sorts of assessments would be made as a matter of course, but you are assuring me that is not the case? 
Mr Varghese : Yes, I suppose it is a bit chicken and egg. If we were a member of the Open Government Partnership then obviously we would be taking a much more active interest in its international dimensions. You could equally argue that in order to assess whether and when to become a member we should be au fait with the international dimensions.

Well at least the questioning prompted some reflection by the Secretary on DFAT's contribution to a big hole in the policy development process.

Three years of water under the bridge, but it is never too late. Secretary, don't wait for Finance to call. There are foreign policy issues relevant in making up our minds to join. Get a seat at the table and put someone with some vision in the chair.

We missed the opportunity to do something on this in Indonesia. 

The Prime Minister is in Canada and the US this week... ah dreaming again.

The relevant extract from the transcript follows including questioning about the PM's invitation to the Bali conference

'Yes Minister' proves handy in Senate estimates

There are always lots of Yes Minister moments during Senate estimates hearings and they were there by the bucketload yesterday in Attorney General estimates.

This from the Yes Minister files:

'What's the difference between "under consideration" and "under active consideration"?' I asked. '"Under consideration" means we've lost the file. "Under active consideration" means we're trying to find it!'"

From yesterday (emphasis added)-Senator Singh ALP Tasmania, Mr Wilkins Secretary AGD, Senator Brandis Attorney General:

Senator SINGH: I am interested in the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. I understand that it released its latest assessment (on Australia) in October 2012, which included a working group on bribery, recommending a number of sufficient resources be given to prosecute foreign bribery cases, of which there were some 33 recommendations needing to be implemented. Has the government looked at the implementation of those recommendations and the issue of facilitation payments in relation to that convention?

Mr Wilkins : Yes.

Senator SINGH: Have we implemented those recommendations?

Mr Wilkins : It is under consideration. Are you talking about facilitation payments?

Senator SINGH: Yes.

Senator Brandis: That is under active consideration. It is something that I have discussed at some length with the department with a view to law reform.

Senator SINGH: And would that law reform look at introducing a ban, in line with the UK?

Senator Brandis: I think it is unwise to anticipate what the final shape of proposed law reform will be until the process of consideration within government has arrived at a final set of proposals. So, for that reason, I will not respond to your question.

Senator SINGH: But part of your consideration will include looking at the UK law?

Senator Brandis: Particularly in an area like this, which has important cross-jurisdictional dimensions, when the government or the department develop law reform proposals they would routinely look at the law of comparable jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom.

Senator SINGH: Do you have a time frame on that law reform proposal?

Senator Brandis: No.

These Q&Non-A sparked by The Greens Senator Ludlam ran a close second:

Senator LUDLAM: ....I have one for you, Mr Wilkins. Can you update us on what work the department has done on data retention and matters attendant on that since the election?

Mr Wilkins : No, I cannot do that off the top of my head. I think I will have to take that on notice.

Senator LUDLAM: Are you aware of any work at all having been done?

Mr Wilkins : No, I will take it on notice.

Senator LUDLAM: Is there anybody at the table or in the room who can deal with this?

Mr Wilkins : No, I do not think so. We will take it on notice.

Senator LUDLAM: You do not need to check? Mr Wilkins, how long will it take for you to identify if there is anything you would like to tell us?

Mr Wilkins : I will do it as soon as I can, actually.

Senator LUDLAM: If we could come back to it later today, that would be good.

Mr Wilkins : It will take more than today. I do not—

Senator LUDLAM: Just to establish whether any work is being done.

Mr Wilkins : I am conscious of the fact that I do not want to give you a half-baked answer—

Senator LUDLAM: Because there is a bit of a history of that regarding this matter, in particular.

Mr Wilkins : You have said that, not me.

Senator LUDLAM: There is a history of questions being—

Senator Brandis: That is a very unfair reflection on the department.

Senator LUDLAM: In this particular matter of data retention I have put questions that have then had to be repeated for corrections, clarifications and contradictions provided on notice, so I do not think it should take more than a day to establish whether the department has done any work in this area. To me that seems a little unreasonable.

Mr Wilkins : I will do it as soon as I can.

Senator LUDLAM: Chair, I will come back a little later when we are in the national security bracket.

.................. 

Senator LUDLAM: Mr Wilkins, is there any update on whether the department is progressing data retention since I was here an hour or two ago?

Mr Wilkins : No.

Senator LUDLAM: You still do not know?

Mr Wilkins : We are still making enquiries. It will be sometime. We are trying to prove a negative.

Senator LUDLAM: Just try and tell me if anybody is working on it or not.

Mr Wilkins : I need to ask everybody and make sure that there is nothing happening in any corner of the department that I do not know about on this one.

Estimates questions and answers.

With another round of Senate Estimates committee hearings underway in Canberra this week, the answers to questions taken on notice during hearings in May provide plenty for those interested in the fine detail the accountability system reveals. Something is there from just about every agency, The issues of possible interest to us were raised in the Finance and Public Administration Committee so didn't get far past those.There are 120 or so answers to questions alone from the Prime Minister's Department, nothing earth -shattering, but tidbits such as the cost of each community cabinet meetung (PM 29); that providing a list of official gifts to Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating would involve too much work given the information is stored on obsolete software (PM111); and the listing of contents of the Prime Minister's wine cellar which includes nothing over $100, mostly modest price stuff, including plenty under $20.(PDF 15KB) Nothing much for Senator Trood either in response to his questions (PM 63-65) concerning the views of intelligence agencies about issues canvassed in the Defence White Paper- one of the dust-ups last time when questions were asked about advice.The Treasury portfolio index includes some interesting subjects.

Government grants set for a little more rigour from July

New rules are scheduled for Commonwealth grants from 1 July 2009, including-this is new?- an obligation on ministers and officials to record why a particular grant is an efficient and effective use of public money. Would be interesting to know the level of compliance with the other new requirement since 1 January to publish details of grants on each agency website- but no-one asked in Estimates last week. And to see what is released as a result of a request for -wait for it- the Grant report on grants.The following from Senate Estimates (Finance and Public Administration 27/5/2009) at 91-93 examination of the Department of Finance and Deregulation

Senator COONAN—Can someone at the table please give me an overview of the new Commonwealth grants framework that will replace the current discretionary grants framework?

Ms Campbell—The Department of Finance and Deregulation is working with a number of agencies across the Commonwealth to finalise and implement a comprehensive policy framework for grants from 1 July 2009. The framework will require that ministers and officials record the basis on which they are satisfied that approving particular grants is an efficient and effective use of public money. From 1 January 2009, agencies have been required to publish on their website, within seven working days after a funding agreement has been signed by both parties, the details of the grant. Also, ministers that are members of the House of
Representatives are to advise the minister for finance when they have approved individual grants to organisations within their own electorate. The new guidelines are going to be underpinned by changes to the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations. They will be amended by 1 July 2009 to ensure, particularly, that the basis of grant approval needs to be recorded.

Senator COONAN—Who has been consulted in relation to the guidelines? Has a draft been released?

Mr Suur—There has been a working group that involves various departments and agencies working on the draft guidelines now for some months. A second iteration of the guidelines went out this week for agency comment, and we hope to have that comment by the end of this week.

Senator COONAN—As I understand it from the answers that have been given, ministers will still be able to approve individual grants to organisations in their own electorates. Is that right?

Ms Campbell—That is correct. Those ministers will be required to notify the minister for finance.

Mr Suur—In fact, that arrangement has been in place since December 2007. It was an early decision of this government.

Ms Campbell—It gets published on the website...As Mr Suur said, some of these measures have been in place since 2007.

Senator COONAN—Which ones?

Ms Campbell—The minister of finance being notified of ministers approving grants. Initially there were requirements for seeking agreement, I think.

Mr Suur—Yes.

Ms Campbell—That has probably been overtaken by this additional transparency, where it is on the website as well as the minister being notified.

Senator COONAN—So there was initially a requirement that there would need to be agreement before the grant was made; is that right? Is that what you just said?

Ms Campbell—At first when the government was looking at the changes that it wanted to make to the grants framework to ensure a level of transparency and accountability I think there was a requirement that a committee consider such a grant. Since that time, there has been a review of the grants framework. There was a strategic review conducted about the best way to ensure the efficient effects were given ethical use of Commonwealth resources in a way that instilled the transparency and accountability that was required.

Senator COONAN—Who undertook the strategic review?

Ms Campbell—The review was undertaken by Mr Peter Grant.... He was assisted by an academic to have a look at the grants programs that have been put in place.

Senator COONAN—Has Mr Grant prepared a report?

Ms Campbell—Yes, he did.

Senator COONAN—Can we have a look at the report?

Ms Campbell—The report was generally advice to government, but—

Dr Watt—We will see what we can do. It is not a public report; we will see what we can do. We can perhaps give you some of it, which might help.

Senator COONAN—This is very interesting. Who was on the committee?

Ms Campbell—I am not aware of that. We will have to take that on notice and get back to you.

Dr Watt—We will take that on notice.

Senator COONAN—Was the committee made up of finance or other people? Who?

Dr Watt—It was a ministerial committee. There are a few things we need to clarify and we will before we go down that road.

Senator COONAN—You could appreciate that it sounds very like there was initially a requirement that grants were made in consultation with the minister for finance or that there had to be approval as opposed to simply notifying the minister of grants. That is what I want to know: was there ever an initial arrangement that was resiled from as a result of this review?

Ms Campbell—We will take that on notice, Senator.

Senator COONAN—You do not actually know that, is that right?

Ms Campbell—I think the initial arrangements that were put in place were pending the outcomes of the review. Once the review was finalised we had to look at the workability of this, at the actual administration of how government would continue to operate in a functional manner when there were a number of grants programs. We did not want to delay getting this funding to the people who would be given the grants.

Senator COONAN—It would be too difficult to. It would have to get a tick-off from the minister.

Dr Watt—It does complicate decision making.

Ms Campbell—The review found that this enhanced level of transparency, where it goes on the website within seven days and the minister was notified, would provide that level of accountability.

Senate questions for Operation Sunlight and budget transparency

Senate Estimates (Finance and Public Administration 27/5/2009 at 88-89) examination of the Department of Finance and Deregulation last week saw questions asked about Operation Sunlight. Nothing new, or startling but here is an edited version.

Senator CAMERON—.. Operation Sunlight was an overhaul of budget transparency. Could you advise me as to how that has operated in the current budget and any issues that have arisen.

Ms Campbell—Operation Sunlight was in play for the last budget as well as this one. In this budget we introduced a significant improvement in the publication of program information in the portfolio budget statements...That was done working closely with all agencies. All agencies have included details of their programs, including financial details and performance information about their programs, in those documents. That has been the most significant change in this budget. I will just go to find a number of the elements that have already been introduced. That one was the most significant in recent times.

Senator CAMERON—Are these the implementation of former Senator Murray’s recommendations as well?

Ms Campbell—Yes. Minister Tanner, when he was in opposition, published a document called Operation Sunlight and then refined it. Once the government was elected, he implemented that operation. He also asked the then Senator Murray to review Operation Sunlight and to make recommendations to further improve the program or to make changes that may have become necessary since Minister Tanner first put the document out. The then Senator Murray’s report was released with the government response in December of last year, and we have been continuing to implement Operation Sunlight, including some additional measures that were
introduced following the then Senator Murray’s review. One of the other significant changes in this budget was the introduction of new outcome statements for a number of agencies. Minister Tanner, in Operation Sunlight, had referred to the fact that some outcome statements were vague and not descriptive and did not really capture, in a definitive manner, what agencies
were expected to deliver. There has been a review of a great deal—in fact the majority—of the outcome statements over the last 12 months, and these have been published in the portfolio budget statements this year. Those that have not been reviewed are generally for organisations undergoing major changes. There are only a handful of those and they will be reviewed over the next few months in time for the next budget.

Ms Campbell—It is an ongoing process but the outcome statements and the program information were both very significant parts of Operation Sunlight. There are a few outstanding items that we will still be working on over the next six to 12 months but the next phase, which will be very important, will be agencies reporting against how their programs have performed. This will occur in next year’s annual report cycle.

Senator CAMERON—One of the changes, as I understand it, is outcome level trend reporting. Have we moved to that yet?

Ms Campbell—No, we have not moved to that yet. We are settling the outcome statements in and asking agencies to look at how they might be able to capture information on the performance of the outcome level. We are very much focusing at the moment on the program level information so that agencies can capture that program information and look at the trends in program information.

Senator CAMERON—When we move to trend reporting, because it is always good to get things in context, how far back would you go?

Ms Campbell—We have not envisaged going backwards at this stage, because it is very difficult to capture information backwards, but we are focusing on moving forward. We are focusing on that at the program level. Next year, in the annual report cycle, those agencies who have detailed the program information in this portfolio budget statement will report against it. Then as time goes by we will be able to capture that information and that trend information.

Ms Campbell—.. in last year’s budget we did introduce just the one set of financial statements in budget paper No. 1, where previously there had been three sets of financial statements. That was introduced last year and streamlined the document somewhat. The bulk of it has been in the yellow documents for each of the portfolios, where they have been able to articulate each of their programs and the expectations of those programs.

Senator CAMERON—Has this focused the minds of the department and the minister to deal with this in a very concise way to get the information out?

Ms Campbell—Operation Sunlight has focused not only the Department of Finance but every department, because it has allowed them to think about what they are delivering and to articulate clearly, and to also capture the program information and to display that for senators and the audience of these documents.