Chapter 4: The Values and relations with the Government and Parliament

Relations with the Parliament

This year’s agency survey asked agencies to report on the measures they had in place to ensure that SES staff understand their rights and responsibilities in relation to the Parliament.

Of the 75 agencies that reported having some or all of their SES staff appear before parliamentary committees, only two reported having no measures in place to ensure that SES understand their rights and responsibilities; 80% reported having three or more measures in place.

The most common measures reported by agencies with SES appearing before committees were learning through attendance and observation (92% of relevant agencies), internal briefing of staff prior to attendance (85%) and self-nominating attendance at training courses or presentations (80%). The use of simulation-type exercises and written internal guidelines was reported by 27% of agencies and mandatory training was reported by 25% of agencies. DAFF, ATSIS, Defence and Treasury also reported that their intranet sites include links to parliamentary and/or other appropriate websites containing information and guidance on parliamentary accountability.

The results indicate that the APS has shifted its focus on this issue compared with last year. Figure 4.2 shows that fewer APS agencies are relying on mandatory and/or self-nominated formal training in this area (a drop from 84 to 62 agencies) and more agencies are using simulation-type exercises (an increase from six to 20 agencies).

The decline in the number of agencies relying on formal training appears to be consistent with information on overall training attendance rates in relation to courses on parliamentary accountability run by the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the APS Commission. Table 4.2 shows a continuing decline in attendance in recent years at APS Commission training courses dealing with this issue. In 2002–03 there was a decline also in attendance at the Department of the Senate seminar (though this is due to the large in-house seminars in 2001–02 conducted for Defence and the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA)). The increase in attendance in the Department of the House of Representatives course does not offset the overall fall in attendance at these courses between 2000–01 and 2002–03.

Table 4.2: Attendance at parliamentary accountability training

Course	Year	Attendance
Accountability, rights and responsibilities (a)	00–01 01–02 02–03	189 68 42
Preparing to appear before a parliamentary committee (b)	00–01 01–02 02–03	44 19 13
Parliament, privilege and accountability (c)	00–01 01–02 02–03	53 108 75
About committees (d)	00–01 01–02 02–03	106 30 119
Total attendance at above courses	00–01 01–02 02–03	392 225 249

Note: (a) The Public servants’ accountability, rights and responsibilities course run by the APS Commission is open to SES and EL level employees and addresses rights and responsibilities as well as the procedures and expectations of parliamentary committee members. (b) The Preparing to appear before a parliamentary committee course run by the APS Commission is open to SES and EL level employees. It builds upon the Public servants’ accountability, rights and responsibilities course. (c) The Parliament, privilege and accountability seminar run by the Department of the Senate is open to SES employees and focuses on the accountability of public servants to Parliament. (d) About Committees is a seminar run by the Department of the House of Representatives and provides detailed information on all aspects of committee work, including types of committees and how they conduct their investigations.

Sources: (a) and (b) APS Commission; (c) The Department of the Senate; (d) Department of the House of Representatives

It should be noted that the APS Commission in its ‘Orientation to the SES’ training course also deals with the accountability framework but not in nearly as much depth as the ‘Accountability, rights and responsibilities’ program. During 2002–03, a total of 83 participants attended the SES orientation course (77 of whom attended the course within 12 months of their appointment to the SES).

The employee survey asked SES employees whether they had ever received formal training in accountability, rights and responsibilities to Federal Parliament. Of those who responded to the question, 72% reported having received training during their career.

To get a clearer picture of the extent of the need for training, SES employees were also asked whether they had appeared before a parliamentary committee during 2002–03, to which 59% indicated that they had. Most importantly, of those respondents who had appeared, just over one-third indicated that they had not received any training in accountability, rights and responsibilities to Federal Parliament at any time.

Last year’s report suggested that agencies are not giving sufficient attention to training their SES on parliamentary accountability. Evidence from the agency and employee surveys indicate that this issue has not been adequately addressed in 2002–03 and that the overall focus on training as a means of equipping employees is declining rather than increasing. While the increase in simulation-type exercises is pleasing and may counterbalance some of the effect of the decline in formal training (or act as a refresher/supplement), indications are that more agencies should be utilising formal training as a means of ensuring their SES employees understand their rights and responsibilities in this area.

In this context, it is worth noting comments made in 2001 by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee on this issue. The Committee found that there was an ‘apparent lack of understanding in the Australian Public Service about parliamentary accountability’.⁷

Formal training is a fundamental way of ensuring that SES employees not only understand their rights and responsibilities to Parliament but are well equipped to appear before parliamentary committees. The employee survey asked respondents who had appeared before a committee how well they felt they had performed. The majority (68%) indicated that they felt well equipped to perform effectively before the committee, 31% felt reasonably equipped, and two per cent felt poorly equipped.

The employee survey results do not allow for an exploration of the link between attendance at formal training and employees’ perceptions about how well equipped they felt in appearing before a parliamentary committee. Nor do they allow any link between attendance at training and the view of committees on performance. However, it is clear that there is room for improvement. A key aim of agencies should be to ensure that employees who are likely to be required to appear before committees are well equipped to respond in a manner that is consistent with their rights and responsibilities. One of the main methods of ensuring that employees are well equipped to respond to committees is the provision of relevant and adequate training.

Budget Estimates and Framework Review

In May 2002, at the request of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration initiated a joint review of the budget estimates and advice system. The aim of the review was to assess the system’s accuracy, responsiveness and effectiveness in meeting the needs of government.

The Budget Estimates and Framework Review was conducted from May to October 2002. It was overseen by an interagency steering committee comprising the Secretaries of Finance (chair), Treasury, FaCS, and DAFF, and a Deputy Secretary from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). The review was serviced by a Finance-led working group and had input from various cross-portfolio reference groups.

The review endorsed the accrual accounting framework, finding that many elements of the system are working well. No changes were proposed to legislation. However, the review identified that there is scope to streamline the Australian Government’s financial framework, to improve information management systems, and to enhance the quality and timeliness of financial information provided to Finance and the Government. For example, the review recommended:

• specific financial reporting timeliness targets for agencies and Finance
• enhanced program budgeting and reporting requirements
• revised centralised cash management arrangements
• harmonisation of Australian accounting standards with the Government finance statistics framework
• the redevelopment of Finance’s central budget information management systems.

The Government agreed to all recommendations in late 2002.

The review’s recommendations provided for regular progress reports and the Government received its first report in September 2003. The report noted that improvements are already evident. These improvements include more central management control of agency cash; the collection and reporting of program information and improvements in financial reporting timeframes. Other recommendations that have been implemented include the cessation of the Agency Banking Incentive Scheme and the Capital Use Charge. With regard to cash management, general government sector agencies commenced on 1 July 2003 to draw down cash on an as needed basis for departmental expenditure, and to forecast their cash draw down needs on a program basis.

Care has been taken to work with agencies during the implementation of the review to ensure that agencies are appropriately consulted on implementation issues. A number of interdepartmental consultative working groups have been established to ensure a cooperative approach is maintained throughout the implementation process.

The Senate Order on departmental and agency contracts

The Senate Order (the Order) on departmental and agency contracts was passed by the Senate on 20 June 2001, with subsequent amendments passed on 27 September 2001 and 26 June 2003.

The purpose of the Order is to provide clarity on, and encourage the appropriate use of, confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracting activity. The Order requires that FMA Act agencies provide on their internet home page a list of all contracts to the value of $100,000 or more which have not been fully performed or which have been entered into during the previous 12 months. Amongst other things, the internet listing should identify whether the contracts contain any confidentiality provisions or other requirements of confidentiality, as well as the reasons for confidentiality.

In order to monitor effective agency implementation, the ANAO has agreed to conduct audits of agency compliance with the requirements of the policy, with a focus upon determining whether agencies have appropriately classified contract material. In February 2003, Finance released Guidance on Confidentiality of Contractors’ Commercial Information to assist agencies in entering into appropriate commitments of confidentiality in their procurement processes. Finance has also issued Guidance on the listing of contract details on the internet to assist FMA Act agencies in meeting the specific requirements of the Order.

The ANAO tabled its fourth audit of FMA Act agencies’ compliance with the Order in September 2003. The audit found that 86% of all agencies presented a list of contracts that provided all the contract information required by the Order. However, the ANAO expressed concern about agencies’ understanding and application of confidentiality protection for contracts. Audit findings suggested that agency compliance could be further improved through continued efforts to ensure practices are reflective of Government policy.

 

7 Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Inquiry into the Government’s information technology outsourcing initiative—Interim report: Accountability in a commercial environment—Emerging issues, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001.