Home
› Whole of Government > Whole of Government systems
» Next: Whole of Government culture and capability
Whole of Government
Whole of Government systems
For whole of government approaches to be successful they have to be supported by effective systems, particularly in the areas of governance and accountability, and ICT.
Governance and accountability
MAC’s Connecting Government report identified Budget and accountability arrangements as an important enabler of whole of government work. More recently, ANAO’s performance audit of the application of the outcomes and outputs framework stressed that the increasing emphasis on the whole of government delivery of services requires agencies to work together to develop budgeting and reporting arrangements that meet both the accountability obligations of individual agencies, and contribute to the collective achievement of, and accountability for, whole of government outcomes.6
Similarly, in its audit of whole of government Indigenous service delivery arrangements, ANAO stated that the whole of government working environment requires government departments, which have traditionally been structured along a vertical responsibility and accountability basis, to develop stronger horizontal relationships.7 ANAO argued that this will necessarily involve revisiting the existing accountability arrangements for programmes and related funding arrangements which have been primarily designed for departments working independently.
Budget and accountability framework
In its audit of the application of the outcome and outputs framework, ANAO concluded that the number of different whole of government arrangements that have been established highlight that the framework has sufficient flexibility to accommodate different whole of government initiatives. Similarly, in its audit of Indigenous service delivery arrangements,
ANAO noted that there is flexibility within the current financial framework to facilitate a range of funding arrangements, including direct debit/invoicing, third party drawing rights, or the use of a central account accessible to all relevant departments.8
The approach taken to funding whole of government Indigenous arrangements is an example of how the budget framework can support whole of government work. Under these arrangements, the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs has taken a single Indigenous Budget Submission to Cabinet for the 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 Budgets. At the grass-roots level, the concept of a cross-portfolio flexible funding pool was adopted initially in the COAG trial sites, and subsequently used to support the development of Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs), Regional Partnership Agreements (RPAs) and other priority interventions and other agreements with State and Territory governments. More recently, the Northern Territory Flexible Funding Pool Special Account has been established to support the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
Despite the flexibility available within the current system, there still appears to be potential to improve understanding, and the flexible use of budgeting and accountability frameworks. ANAO’s audit of whole of government Indigenous service delivery arrangements, for example, found that despite the establishment of flexible funding pools, insufficient attention had been given to policy implementation to reflect the original intention of the Government that service delivery to Indigenous people involves the flexible use of funds through joint funding arrangements. ANAO found that where there are a number of departments involved, suitable financial arrangements to support individual tailored agreements with Indigenous communities have yet to be developed, with individual departmental accountability requirements detracting from the ICC/whole of government focus.9 Only a minority of Indigenous-specific programmes reported making programme guidelines more flexible or incorporating whole of government design innovations since the commencement of the new arrangements. In addition, rigid funding arrangements and programme guidelines were the most frequently cited barriers to better working arrangements with other departments.
ANAO argued that a renewed focus on more efficient mechanisms to jointly fund projects and initiatives where more than one Australian Government agency is involved, would reduce ‘red tape’ for Indigenous communities and service providers, and assist Indigenous Australians to more readily access Australian Government programmes and services. The ANAO’s finding is consistent with the views of SES and EL 2 employees that more streamlined administrative processes would assist their agency to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, as reported in Chapter 8.
There is also a perception among some employees that Budget arrangements do not fully support joined-up approaches, and that implementing supportive budgeting and reporting approaches can be problematic in practice. Only 27% of SES and EL employees, who had dealt directly with people from other public service agencies during the last 12 months, for example, agreed that current financial and accountability arrangements usually facilitated whole of government work. Twenty per cent believed that they only rarely facilitated whole of government work. This was the poorest result for any aspect of whole of government work (see Table 10.2).
The proportion of relevant employees believing that current financial and accountability arrangements usually facilitate whole of government ranged from a low of 11% to 61% in agencies with statistically valid individual agency-specific results, with the highest results at Finance. The highest result for agencies other than Finance was only 45%. Results were lower for large agencies than for medium and small agencies.
There are also relatively poor perceptions of the handling of financial issues in multi-agency forums. Only just over half of EL and SES employees who had been members of multi- agency forums or structures in the last 12 months agreed that participants pool resources where necessary (56%—see Table 10.4).
Despite these results, only one-third of agencies (see Table 10.2) put a high or very high priority on improving financial and accountability arrangements to facilitate whole of government work. This may reflect a belief that these are issues which need to be tackled more at a cross-agency level than in individual agencies.
A particular issue is the development of effective lines of accountability and reporting in whole of government exercises. It is important that lines of accountability and reporting clearly articulate shared outcomes across portfolios for Ministers and agencies, provide a framework for joint responsibility and accountability, and allow progress against meaningful performance indicators to be reported, in a way that recognises vertical and horizontal responsibilities. ANAO has highlighted the difficulty of ascertaining the overall success of whole of government programmes in a number of audit reports.10 In the case of whole of government Indigenous service delivery arrangements, ANAO concluded that while departments individually identify their activities in Indigenous affairs in their accountability documentation, there is little in the way of performance information at the aggregate level to assess and inform progress in terms of the Ministerial Taskforce’s identified priority areas for action. The annual report of the Secretaries Group on Indigenous Affairs provides performance information for each of the key Australian Government programmes that assist Indigenous people, but it is predominantly descriptive.
As part of its audit report, ANAO recommended that, as a minimum, participating departments identify their individual contribution to achieving improvements to the intermediate outcomes that contribute over time to the Ministerial Taskforce’s priority areas. It also recommends that departments collectively settle an appropriate model to present public information on the performance of Australian Government departments for the information of Ministers and the Australian Parliament. The participating agencies have agreed to these recommendations.
There appears, at the least, to be a strong case for more detailed guidance for agencies and APS employees involved in whole of government work on the sorts of budgetary and accountability arrangements that are likely to suit different types of whole of government exercises. This view is supported by ANAO’s audit of the application of the outcomes and outputs framework. To ensure that similar whole of government arrangements adopt a consistent approach to Budget and performance reporting arrangements, ANAO’s audit of the application of the outcomes and outputs framework recommended Finance consider opportunities for improving guidance, including principles that could assist agencies in determining individual whole of government Budget and reporting arrangements. Finance has agreed to this recommendation.11
A specific aspect of the current guidance that may need to be revisited is the use of cross- agency outcomes. The current Finance guidance on outcomes and outputs states that where agency outcomes are quite similar, it may be appropriate for those agencies (even if they are in different portfolios) to agree to a single outcome statement within which they establish their own outputs.12 A survey of 44 agencies subject to the FMA Act undertaken for ANAO’s audit, however, found that none of the surveyed agencies had cross-agency outcomes. ANAO suggested that the concept of cross-agency outcomes be reviewed in light of its lack of application by agencies to date.
One area where MAC identified potential for improvement was in encouraging and facilitating the exchange of financial information between Australian Government agencies. During 2006–07, there were further developments to support improved financial reporting through the progressive implementation of the Central Budget Management System (CBMS). CBMS was used for the first time to support the production of the 2006–07 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and the 2007–08 Budget. Implementation of the remaining components of CBMS is anticipated to occur during the 2007–08 financial year and will facilitate further improvements to processes surrounding Australian Government financial reporting.
Some SES and EL respondents to the employee survey raised improvements to the Budget framework as an idea for improving their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies. One employee, for example, believed:
There are structural impediments within govt e.g. finance guidelines controlling movement of resources across portfolios that prevent or inhibit best use of resources from a whole of govt perspective.
Other employees saw Budget issues as more linked to the level of resources provided for whole of government work.
Cross-agency structures
MAC’s Connecting Government report, and work by ANAO and PM&C, has stressed the importance of the careful choice of appropriate structures to support whole of government work.13 Employee survey results suggest that the most common type of cross-agency structure is still the IDC. More than two-thirds, of all SES and EL employees (68%) who had been a member of a multi-agency forum, had been a member of an IDC.
There are situations, however, where alternatives to the traditional IDC are more appropriate. The Auditor-General, for example, has stated that if there is deep contention between portfolios or in the community, and tight time frames are involved, a dedicated taskforce under strong leadership, and working directly to the Prime Minister, a senior Minister or a Cabinet committee, may produce better outcomes than a more standard IDC.14
Where whole of government exercises involve ongoing service delivery functions, an ongoing whole of government structure, such as ICCs, may need to be established. The experience of ICCs suggests that, in such structures, it is particularly important to establish clear lines of reporting that empower managers on the ground and to ensure effective accountability of departmental staff to their home agencies. As the chair of the Secretaries’ Group on Indigenous Affairs, Dr Peter Shergold, acknowledged in his foreword to the Secretaries’ Group 2005–06 annual report, ‘The difficulty is to improve coordination without creating yet another layer of administrative burden. We now recognise more clearly that solutions lie in greater delegation to the local or regional level coupled with more cross-agency collegiality at all levels.’15
There continues to be a need to develop more effective arrangements for cross-agency structures. This includes better clarifying issues of authority, particularly where taskforces are chaired by an agency other than PM&C, or where work is transferred from a central agency to a line agency, and developing clear lines of accountability. Respective responsibilities need to be clear within IDCs and taskforces, and the scope of whole of government exercises needs to be clearly specified.
The importance of clarifying issues of authority in whole of government work and identifying a lead agency is stressed in the ANAO and PM&C Better Practice Guide on the implementation of programme and policy initiatives, and in individual ANAO audit reports.16 In a performance audit of drought assistance programmes, for example, ANAO found that, in the absence of a formal lead agency, there was no whole of government implementation plan, limitations in cross-departmental strategies, and no framework to support assessment of the implementation of the full range of drought assistance measures.17 The importance of providing the lead agency with clear authority to resolve administrative barriers was also emphasised in ANAO’s audit of whole of government Indigenous service delivery arrangements.18
The ANAO and PM&C Better Practice Guide also emphasises the importance of ensuring that there is clear recognition of the risk mitigation responsibilities of the various parties. This is a particularly important issue. The Auditor-General has noted that cross-agency arrangements inevitably involve at least dual accountability of participants both for their individual organisations, and for the ‘joined-up’ arrangements.19 In these situations, agencies need to pay sufficient attention to identifying and managing the risks in delivering whole of government programmes in a coordinated way across agencies, while ensuring that they do not create a culture which is too ‘risk averse’.
Once in operation, it is important that IDCs and taskforces are fully supported by the participating agencies. The ANAO/PM&C guide stresses that representation should be at the senior responsible officer level to ensure effective communication and monitoring of progress on a whole of government initiatives.
The ANAO and PM&C guide also emphasises that where there is a whole of government dimension to a policy, there needs to be a common understanding among the relevant agencies of what the initiative is trying to do. The importance of creating a ‘shared understanding’ of a policy issue among the range of organisations involved has also been emphasised in the literature on wicked problems. A shared understanding requires both an understanding of the Government’s broad policy objectives, and a degree of ‘organisational understanding’, so that how the issue is dealt with in each organisation’s structure and how it is talked about (the terminology used) is understood. Once a shared understanding is achieved, organisations can work together to explore, map, frame and re-frame the wicked problem and try to find appropriate measures to take.
The concept of ‘shared understanding’ is not a synonym for ‘group think’, where all participating agencies approach a problem in the same way and with the same views. Rather, it should allow agencies to develop a common understanding of a problem, and lead to a more effective interchange of different views and perspectives.
The importance of establishing effective cross-agency arrangements was emphasised by a number of SES and EL employees who provided ideas for improving their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies. One employee, for example, said:
There need to be clear parameters set before such working groups are established. Key to the success are methods of communication and an understanding of the goals of the group as well as time to work together without ever changing goal posts.
Whole of Government in Action—Synopsis Review of the COAG Trial Evaluations
In February 2007, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs released a synopsis report drawing on individual evaluations of the COAG trials operating in eight Indigenous communities across Australia.
The trials, administered jointly by the Australian, State and Territory Governments, began in 2002 and explored new cooperative and flexible ways for governments to work together to reduce Indigenous disadvantage.
The trials have helped build important relationships between government agencies and communities. however, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous affairs noted when releasing the report that too much bureaucracy has often resulted in limited outcomes.
While acknowledging the limitations of the trials, the Minister noted that there have been many successes. During the trial at Balgo in Western Australia, for example, crime rates reduced dramatically as a result of a new place management approach, and in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yakunytjatjara Lands, innovative nutrition programmes have been established. In Murdi Paaki, the Regional Assembly Chairman acknowledged that ‘the whole of government approach to Indigenous affairs has changed mindsets’.
The evaluation of the trials demonstrated that significant learnings have occurred in all sites, with some evidence of improved whole of government and partnership links. The reports found that the Indigenous communities have valued governments working together and the effort made to engage with the communities, despite some disappointment with some processes.
Where there was evidence of strong government partnerships across all three levels of government, stronger relationships were evident with Indigenous communities. Where local government was actively engaged in partnerships and whole of government initiatives, this was welcomed by the Indigenous community concerned.
The report found that leadership provided through the Secretaries’ Group was important evidence of government commitment to new ways of workings. The trials affirmed the importance of this leadership in whole of government and shared responsibility efforts. how well Secretaries worked to model a whole of government approach, as opposed to a single agency approach, was identified as a significant factor in supporting the trials.
The COAG trial approach recognised the need to make changes at all levels in the system—national, state and local—but this was difficult to achieve consistently across levels and sites. The synopsis report suggested that involving more partners can increase the risk that decision-making processes become too complex, unless it is made clear that the involvement of some players is to improve coordination, clear blockages and reduce red tape, not to add more steps to the decision-making process.
The synopsis report identified some key lessons for whole of government from the evaluation of the trials. These included:
- Whole of government, place-based initiatives require systemic changes at the local community, state and national level. The extent to which an initiative can achieve a whole of government approach is dependent on the effectiveness within and between these systemic, levels, not just government levels.
- More widespread reward and recognition for good whole of government practice is needed.
- Staff engaged in whole of government initiatives need training to provide them with the skills and knowledge on how to do whole of government work. Training is needed across all levels—senior executive, middle management and field staff.
Internal governance structures
Effective governance arrangements at a cross-agency and cross-jurisdictional level need to be complemented by internal governance and accountability arrangements that support whole of government work. This includes systems and procedures to support authorisation for appropriate local decision-making. Several SES and EL respondents to the employee survey commented that their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies would be enhanced by providing more authority for EL employees and regional staff to participate in formal whole of government work.
Departmental performance indicators should also reflect cross-agency outcomes. This can be a particular challenge in long-term projects which require significant periods of time before substantial changes in outcomes can be expected. In these circumstances, performance indicators may need to focus on processes needed to achieve outcomes, such as the establishment of community agreements, as well as the longer-term higher outcomes themselves.
Internal governance processes also need to provide for individual performance arrangements that ensure appropriate rewards for collaborative work. The need for a stronger focus on ensuring that performance management systems adequately recognise and reward whole of government work was a key theme of the synopsis review of the COAG trial evaluations.
A stronger focus on rewarding collaboration is also supported by the perceptions of employees involved in whole of government work. Only 29% of SES and EL employees who had dealt directly with people from other public service agencies in the last 12 months thought that their agency’s performance management system usually adequately recognised or rewarded whole of government work. This result varied from a low of 15% to a high of 55% in agencies with statistically valid results.
Twenty per cent of relevant employees across agencies believed that their agency’s performance management system rarely adequately recognised or rewarded whole of government work. Nevertheless, of the whole of government initiatives listed in Table 10.2, agencies were least likely to view ensuring performance management systems adequately recognise or reward whole of government work as a high or very high priority in 2006–07.
More formal recognition for collaborative behaviour was also raised by a number of SES and EL employees who provided ideas about improving their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies. One employee, for example, believed collaboration could be improved by:
Hav[ing] the Secretary be seen to reward some people who work together to achieve whole of Government outcomes. At present behaviour that promotes a local rather than whole of Government agenda is usually rewarded (particularly where resources are concerned), so it is not surprising that this behaviour is common.
Internal governance structures are also relevant to the smooth running of multi-agency forums. A common approach is to establish guidelines for participating in multi-agency forums.
| 2004–05 (% of agencies) |
2005–06 (% of agencies) |
2006–07 (% of agencies) |
2006–07 (% of relevant SES/EL employees) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedures that ensure that employees have the relevant skills/knowledge and authority to participate in such forums | 35 | 40 | 48 | 67(a) |
| Requirement that employees maintain records of discussions, decisions and actions of the forum or structure | 63 | 63 | 63 | 81 |
| Procedures for ensuring that employees have the appropriate authority to express views on behalf of agency | 54 | 58 | 58 | N/A |
| Requirement that Minister(s) are briefed on relevant issues | 54 | 55 | 61 | 52 |
| Requirement that agency representatives report back to other employees in your agency | 61 | 63 | 65 | 93 |
| Access via the agency’s intranet to the Working Together document(b) | 38 | 48 | 52 | N/A |
(a) Relevant employees answered a slightly narrower question that related only to whether they were required to ensure they had the appropriate authority to participate in a forum or structure. (b) Working Together is a publication by MAC released in March 2005 that provides broad guidance on the handling of whole of government communication, organisation, standards of behaviour and inter-agency working arrangements. Source: Agency and employee surveys |
||||
The agency survey continues to show that the majority of agencies have recognised the value of having formal guidelines/policies in place to guide employees’ participation in formal, multi-agency decision-making forums (see Table 10.3). Encouragingly, there has been some increase this year in the proportion of agencies having procedures that ensure employees have the relevant skills/knowledge and authority to participate in such forums. However, there has been very little change in the incidence of other requirements or procedures, with a sizeable minority of agencies not having relevant procedures or requirements in place.
In the areas of ensuring employees have appropriate authority to participate and maintaining records and reporting back to their agency, the employee survey results were higher than the agency survey results would suggest. This indicates that even where formal protocols do not exist, agency managers make it clear what is required of employees on a case-by-case basis. However, in the case of a requirement to brief Ministers, the employee results are lower than the agency survey results would suggest.
Agency highlights—Whole of Government governance arrangements
In 2006–07, the ATO has specifically included in its corporate priorities that it collaborates with other agencies in the design of whole of government initiatives from a citizen’s and business perspective. a key component of the FaCSIA Core Business Processes is the inclusion of guidance and advice on practical application of participating in whole of government initiatives. This also raises awareness of all staff on the importance of the Department’s role and participation in whole of government initiatives.
Technology enablement
Working more successfully across organisations relies on better information sharing, and requires structured approaches to the collection and sharing of information and data. On a practical level, this includes continuing the progress towards the adoption of common information policies, standards and protocols across APS agencies to improve interoperability, and identifying information management needs early in the planning process around whole of government issues.
Since the release in 2006 of the Australian Government’s e-Government Strategy, Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda,20 there has been significant action to support the whole of government use of ICT. The strategy has a strong focus on encouraging agencies to operate in a collaborative and connected manner and this is discussed in more detail in Chapter 11. It has been implemented in collaboration across agencies through:
- establishment of cross-agency ICT governance bodies to ensure a coordinated and consistent approach across whole of government in the use of ICT
- development of whole of government ICT policies, checklists, frameworks and better practice guidance through agency consultation.
The Secretaries’ Committee on Information and Communications Technology (SCICT), established in June 2006, has continued to operate as a strategic, decision-making committee to drive whole of government approaches relating to the use of ICT across government. The SCICT membership consists of Secretaries from central and service delivery departments and agencies. SCICT is supported by a Deputy Secretaries Group (DSG), the Business Process Transformation Committee, which coordinates the redesign and reform of agency business processes, and the Chief Information Officers’ Committee, responsible for investigating and endorsing ICT issues and solutions to be applied at the whole of government level.
Working groups, such as the Australian Government Services Architecture Working Group, consisting of different agencies from across the APS, have also been convened to carry out specific work programmes and projects endorsed by the Deputy Secretaries and Chief Information Officers. These collaborative work programmes have allowed agency input to, and ownership of, ICT policies and initiatives across government.
In collaboration with agencies, Finance, through AGIMO, has released a range of policies and guidance to support agency collaboration and the whole of government use of ICT. A significant release in 2006–07 was the Australian Government Architecture (AGA) Reference Models version 1.0, which is the first release of a framework that will:
- provide a common language for agencies involved in the delivery of cross-agency services
- support the identification of duplicate re-usable and shareable services
- provide a basis for the objective review of ICT investment by government
- enable more cost-effective and timely delivery of ICT services, through a repository of standards, principles and templates that assist in the design and delivery of ICT capability and, in turn, business services to citizens.
Another significant release was the ICT Investment Framework. This framework provides tools to assist agencies to improve the quality of their strategic planning, business cases, project management and evaluation for ICT investments.
Despite the significant activity at the whole-of-APS level, employees involved in whole of government work still appear to be relatively dissatisfied with the compatibility of agencies’ ICT systems. Only 32% of SES and EL employees who were required to deal directly with people from other public service agencies thought that their agencies’ ICT systems were usually sufficiently compatible to support whole of government work. Twenty per cent thought they were rarely sufficiently compatible.
The proportion of relevant employees usually experiencing ICT systems that are sufficiently compatible to support whole of government work in agencies with statistically valid results, ranged from a low of 28% to 60%. In addition, only 59% of SES and EL employees participating in multi-agency forums thought that participants were supported by adequate information and communications infrastructure (see Table 10.4).
Despite these results, only one-third of agencies put a high or very high priority on enhancing the agency’s ICT compatibility to support whole of government work (see Table 10.2). This is a poor result and, given the heavy reliance on ICT these days, it suggests a serious shortfall in agency commitment to facilitating whole of government activities. There is potential for a much more collaborative approach to ICT across agencies, which would support the provision of easily accessible information and access to government services. Such approaches are fundamental to providing a more streamlined experience of Government services for the community as a whole.
Although some issues of incompatibility are being dealt with at a whole-of-APS level, there is potential for individual agencies to place a higher priority on this area. When asked for ideas on what would improve their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies, relevant SES and EL employees put a strong emphasis on improving ICT interoperability. There was a particular emphasis on improving the ability of ICT infrastructure in the APS to support information sharing between agencies, particularly in the area of secure or confidential information. Problems with information sharing were also seen as relating to legislative requirements and culture.
Whole of Government in Action—Australian Disaster Information Network
There are a diverse range of stakeholders with an interest in emergency management issues. They include the local community, emergency managers, regulators, legislators, funding agencies, scientific agencies, health agencies, data and service providers, the insurance industry, educators, researchers and the private sector.
To provide for the diverse needs of these stakeholders, the Australian Disaster Information Network (AusDIN) portal, (http://www.ausdin.gov.au), was launched in November 2006. The portal provides Australians with ready access to clear, understandable, user-friendly information about emergency management and the government organisations that are part of the Australian emergency management system.
The AusDIN portal is a multi-agency initiative. Development of the AusDIN portal is managed by the AusDIN Portal Group. The Portal Group has government agency representatives from each of the States and Territories, APS agencies (AGD, BOM, Geoscience Australia) and the Australian and New Zealand Land Information Council. The chairperson of the group also occupies a position on the National Spatial and Information Management Working Group, to ensure that the development of the Portal is in keeping with the work occurring as part of the wider national information management strategy. AGD provides secretariat support to the Portal Group and hosts the portal within its IT environment.
The AusDIN Charter is to:
- promote and facilitate the sharing of emergency management related information and knowledge
- develop relationships across jurisdictional boundaries that will enhance the information sharing capability of all emergency management sector agencies
- share and disseminate best practice examples and lessons on information relating to emergency and disaster management developments.
AusDIN also acts as a focal point for national campaigns and projects. A component of the 2007 national Triple Zero Campaign, for example, aimed at promoting Australia’s emergency call service, involved the creation of a www.triplezero.gov.au web presence embedded within the AusDIN portal.
AusDIN is being delivered through a planned programme of updates. It hopes to be able to facilitate a whole of government approach to emergency management across the three tiers of government (federal, state and local). The AusDIN portal has the potential to be the virtual “one stop shop” for emergency management information—in the one location, users will be able to link to pertinent emergency management information in a seamless manner.
6 ANAO 2007, Application of the Outcomes and Outputs Framework, Performance Audit Report No. 23, 2006–07, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
7 ANAO 2007, Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements, Performance Audit Report No. 10, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
8 ANAO 2007, Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements, Performance Audit Report No. 10, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
9 ANAO 2007, Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements, Performance Audit Report No. 10, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
10 See, for example, ANAO 2005, Drought Assistance, Performance Audit Report No. 50, 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra; and ANAO 2007, Application of the Outcomes and Outputs Framework, Performance Audit Report No. 23, 2006–07, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
11 ANAO 2007, Application of the Outcomes and Outputs Framework, Performance Audit Report No. 23, 2006–07, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
12 Department of Finance and Administration 2003, Outcomes and Outputs Guidance, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.finance.gov.au/budgetgroup>
13 Management Advisory Committee 2004, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>; ANAO and PM&C 2007, Implementation of Programme and Policy Initiatives: Making Implementation Matter, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
14 I. McPhee (Auditor-General for Australia), ‘Governance: The ANAO’s Contribution to Making it Happen’, (Address to the Queensland Regional Heads Forum, 18 May 2007), <http://www.anao.gov.au>
15 FaCSIA 2006, Secretaries’ Group Annual Report on Indigenous Affairs 2005–06, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.facsia.gov.au>
16 ANAO and PM&C 2007, Implementation of Programme and Policy Initiatives: Making Implementation Matter, Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
17 ANAO 2005, Drought Assistance, Performance Audit Report No. 50, 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
18 ANAO 2007, Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements, Performance Audit Report No. 10, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
19 I. McPhee (Auditor-General for Australia), ‘Future Challenges for Risk Management in the Australian Public Sector’, (Opening Address to the RMIA—ACT Chapter Conference, April 2005), <http://www.anao.gov.au>
20 AGIMO 2006, Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http//www.agimo.gov.au>
