Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
Feedback form
Finance is seeking consolidated feedback from each entity on topics covered in the discussion paper. The key topic areas are identified in the table
below, together with related discussion questions. These questions have been included to stimulate broad consideration of options to enhance the
performance framework. It is not necessary to answer all of the discussion questions, or to provide feedback on every topic.
Name of entity:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and
Development Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
Contact name:
Tanya Howitt (who is the contact point and co-ordinator for the 5 entities who are making this submission)
Contact position:
Executive Manager Corporate Services, GRDC
Telephone:
(02) 6166 4501
Email:
Tanya.Howitt@grdc.com.au
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
Topic and key questions
Feedback
Portfolio Budget Statements
- Should all corporate and noncorporate Commonwealth entities be
required to complete Portfolio Budget
Statements?
No - Small corporate Commonwealth entities that are not directly appropriated but are funded through a
Portfolio Department should provide financial and non-financial performance information to the Portfolio
Department to be consolidated into the Department’s Portfolio Budget Statement.
Where several small agencies under the same enabling legislation provide financial and non-financial
performance information to the Portfolio Department then the Department could provide a set of consolidated
financials accounts for those agencies.
In addition, each small agency should include their budgeted financial statements in their Annual Operating
Plan . Many small agencies have a status of ”immaterial” for financial reporting and as a result only the
consolidated financial statements would be material for PBS purposes.
- Should Commonwealth entities that
don’t prepare Portfolio Budget
Statements place performance
information in their corporate plans
instead?
- Should the Portfolio Budget
Statements contain only non-financial
performance information, with all
financial information published in the
core budget documents (Budget
Papers 1 to 4)?
Yes – By including immaterial small agency budgeted financial statements in their annual operating –
plans/corporate plans it still allows the financial and non-financial information to be assessed against the actual
results in the annual report and annual performance statement.
There would be no need for Portfolio Budget Statements if the performance information is included in the
annual operating plans/corporate plans and then the financial data is in Budget Papers 1-4. To continue to
produce a PBS would be duplication.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- Are the Portfolio Budget Statements
the best location for detailed entity
performance information?
- Would entities and the Parliament be
better served if all performance
information was removed from the
Portfolio Budget Statements and
instead published as a core element of
entities’ corporate plans?
- If so, should corporate plans be
published in conjunction with the
Portfolio Budget Statements on
budget night to expand the range of
information available to Parliament as
it considers the annual Appropriation
Bills?
- Could non-financial performance
information be provided
electronically on budget night and
published in the corporate plan?
No – The corporate plan should contain the detailed entity performance information. The Portfolio Budget
Statements should be high level programme/outcome focused.
There would be no need for Portfolio Budget Statements if the performance information is included in the
annual operating plans/corporate plans and then the financial data is in Budget Papers 1-4. To continue to
produce a PBS would be duplication.
Yes – Most agencies rely on internal documents that have detailed financial and non-financial information that
support the information reported in the Portfolio Budget Statements. As this information is already available,
the corporate plans should be made available to Parliament at the same time as the Portfolio Budget Statements.
However, they should be provided in electronic form to Parliament through a secure portal until the
Appropriation Bills have been passed.
By way of additional suggestion, it would also be of assistance if Annual Reports could be provided to Parliament
in an electronic format.
Yes – see previous comment.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
More flexible performance planning,
monitoring and reporting
arrangements
- What is the scope for the internal
datasets currently collected in your
entity being leveraged for publishable
data to support better tactical and
strategic decision-making in
government?
The RDCs have a single overarching outcome, ie the funding of research and the adoption of that research by
the specific agricultural industries that each RDC supports. Therefore RDCs maintain two types of datasets,
financial and programme/outcome data. Both provide performance information such as the cost of the
programme (financial) and progress against stakeholder agreed deliverables (non-financial). The Primary
Industries Research and Development Act 1989 provides that the Portfolio Department, industry stakeholders
and the agencies accountable authority must agree on:
1. the performance plan through a strategic 5 year R&D Plan; and
2. the annual corporate plan with financial budgets (PBS and Annual Operating Plan-AOP).
The accountable authority reports against the plans by providing actual financial and non-financial information
as well as performance evaluations in:
1. the Annual Report with financial and non-financial information that can be reviewed against the PBS
and corporate plan (AOP); and
2. the annual and 5 year R&D Reports which focus on non-financial performance reporting against the
Strategic 5 year R&D Plan.
Performance information extracted from these reports and datasets have been provided to the Portfolio
Department and the Productivity Commission to support tactical and strategic decision-making in government
as well as the agriculture industry that is also contributing through crop levies to the RD&E funding.
- What considerations need to be taken
into account in growing new datasets
ready for publication?
The RDCs seek clarification as to the meaning of the term “datasets” when used in this context. Datasets are
generally masses of records that in themselves do not provide information that can be interpreted by the
general reader.
The RDCs also seek clarification as to the “information gap” that any new datasets are designed to fill.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- What sort of guidance should Finance
provide on performance
measurement tools?
It would assist the RDC’s if Finance could provide details about the different performance measurement tools
and guidance as to when they should and should not be used.
However, the RDCs do not support the mandating of particular performance measurement tools across the
Commonwealth. The RDC’s need to have the freedom to select the performance measurement tools that best
reflect their operating environment and the expectations of their stakeholders. Mandating also carries a risk
that it may generate performance measurement results that are of variable quality and utility.
- What level of detail should Finance
provide on performance
measurement tools?
- What level of guidance is appropriate
regarding which performance
measurement tools work best in
particular circumstances?
- Should all KPIs be reported publicly
on an annual basis?
Finance could provide training, guidance and access to performance measurement tools and templates. Each
RDC can then determine how much additional support they require from Finance.
See previous response. Guidance is appropriate but the RDCs should retain the flexibility to select performance
measurement tools that best reflect their operating environment and the expectations of their stakeholders.
No –the programmes of research, development and extension undertaken by the RDCs have differing
frequencies for KPI measurement purposes. Some KPIs can be measured annually while others that cannot be
measured until near the end of a programme.
However, when providing KPIs in the PBS or corporate plans the RDC can state the appropriate frequency when
reporting against each KPI.
- Should entities plan and report on
performance at a programme level?
We assume that the word “programme” when used in the Question refers to an appropriated Commonwealth
Programme as that term is used in the PBS. In that case, this is a decision for the Portfolio Department and
requires consideration of materiality factors as noted earlier. We ask that the Department clarify.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- Should entities plan and report on
performance at a sub-programme or
major activity level?
- What level of performance reporting
best serves entities’ and Parliament’s
purposes?
- What level of reporting delivers the
best outcomes for entities and
Parliament in comparison to the
effort required to produce it?
- Should a programme expenditure
materiality threshold be applied to
support a simpler approach?
- Should the annual performance plans
be subject to coordinated and/or
centralised review, or is entity selfassessment sufficient?
This should be a matter for individual agencies. Small agencies with only one programme/outcome tend to
report on major activities in the Annual Report.
Performance reporting should be designed with the audience in mind. RDCs take a commercial approach to
reporting like a public company. Internal management reports have a micro focus including information about
individual research projects. Board reports are a blend of high level programme information, major activity
performance and significant project successes or issues. This allows the Board to have both an overview of
strategic progress and an appropriate focus on risk management. Government and Industry stakeholder
reporting should be high level reporting against the programme including significant outcomes or potential
risks to future outcomes.
See previous comment.
It is also noted that reports are not outcomes in themselves.
Yes. This would assist RDCs and their Portfolio Departments to make decisions about the level of reporting that
is required.
Portfolio Departments should review the agencies in their Portfolio.
The Minister would review the Portfolio Department’s annual performance plan which could include some
information for each agency in the Portfolio.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- Who would be best placed to conduct
coordinated and/or centralised
reviews?
See previous comment.
Corporate plans
- Do you have any suggested inclusions
or deletions for the requirements of
corporate plans suggested in Section
2.2 of the discussion paper?
- Is the proposed list of inclusions in a
corporate plan appropriate?
A materiality level should be set. For example, capital investment strategy if less than $50m and ICT
Investment strategy if less than $5m could be excluded for small agencies.
Government policies that apply to an agency could be included in the corporate plan as a governance note. The
note would include information about how the policy is being managed.
A materiality level should be set. For example, capital investment strategy if less than $50m and ICT
Investment strategy if less than $5m could be excluded for small agencies.
By way of more general comment, it would greatly assist the RDCs if Finance could provide a single point of
reference so that RDCs have an easy source of advice as to what Policies, Rules and Orders apply. This could, for
example, comprise a chart or table accessible via the Finance website.
- Do you have any suggestions on
removing existing duplicative
reporting?
No.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- Do you have any suggestions on how
to tier existing performance reporting
requirements?
As is noted at Footnote 3 Page 4 of the Paper, the RDCs are already subject to comprehensive planning and
performance reporting arrangements under the PIRD Act. This has been acknowledged by Government
through the conferral of an exemption on the RDCs from comply with the new PGPA corporate plan
requirements
The RDCs are comfortable with the existing planning and performance reporting under the PIRD Act and as
noted earlier, the PIRD Act requirements are specifically targeted to the operating environment of the RDCs
and the requirements of its stakeholders. Any move to require the RDCs to comply with the corporate planning
requirements of the PGPA should only occur after the requirements of the PIRD Act are considered and steps
are taken to avoid duplication and inconsistency
Timeframe for updates
- Would a four-year plan support
medium- to long- term strategic
planning?
- Should corporate plans be a living
document and be updated as needed?
- Should the proposed corporate
planning rule set some of the
requirements for updating corporate
plans?
Yes, however, due the nature of the activities undertaken by the RDCs a 5 year planning phase is more
appropriate.
Yes. While there needs to be some flexibility to amend a corporate plan this should only by exception where a
significant material change occurs. For example a new NPP.
Yes – see previous response.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- Should entities report progress
against the corporate plan under Part
3 (management and accountability) of
their annual reports?
Yes
Annual performance statements
- Is the level of information proposed to
be reported in entities’ performance
statements appropriate?
Yes – from the RDCs’ perspective the key to success is to have a good framework supported by appropriate
guidance.
The RDC’s expect this would be reported in the Annual Report – both performance information and financial
information.
- How should copies of annual
performance statements be included
in annual reports?
Annual Performance Statements should be an identifiable section of the Annual Report as are the Financial
Statements.
Cross-entity activities
- How best can cross-entity activities be
measured?
- How should guidance be developed to
assist entities to improve their
measurement and reporting of crossentity activities?
The RDCs are not sure what the term “cross-entity activities” means in the context of their operating
environment, however, as a general comment, whenever more than one entity is involved in the delivery of an
outcome it is critical that a lead entity should be nominated. The lead entity is primarily responsible for
accountability and performance measurement and is responsible for selecting and reporting against KPIs.
See previous response.
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
Monitoring and evaluation
- Is there a benefit in having a more
formal regime that identifies areas for
review in a more coherent manner
than currently exists?
- Is there a benefit in providing
improved consistent guidance
material and allowing entities to
adopt practices based on that
guidance?
No.
Yes, improved consistent guidance material is always welcome but as noted earlier, the RDCs need to have the
flexibility to adopt monitoring and evaluation tools that reflect best practice in their operating environment
and meet the expectations of their stakeholders.
Performance plans
- Would performance plans help to
improve the quality of non-financial
reporting by Commonwealth entities
by improving front-end planning?
- At what level should performance
information and performance plans
be developed and reported by
entities?
Yes. Performance plans are a good starting point to report against as are Financial budgets.
Non-financial information in plans and reports should allow agencies to determine what to include, particularly
when it is not a material agency for Portfolio reporting purposes. For material agencies, the Portfolio
Department may agree with its agencies common performance indicators and measures. Finance should
determine Government performance indicators and measures for Portfolio Departments or non-corporate
Commonwealth entities
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- Would a performance plan draw out
early feedback on the
appropriateness of particular
performance measurements?
Yes – any limitations in a performance measurement methodology will generally become apparent when you
seek to apply it in practice.
The RDCs query the respective roles of Finance and the Portfolio Department in the review of the performance
plan. Duplication should be avoided.
Proposed elements of a performance plan
- Could the financial information
provided in the current programme
expenses table in the Portfolio Budget
Statements be restructured, over
time, to represent more of a
resourcing view, rather than an
appropriation view?
- Could the table represent resources
available to an organisation under the
broad headings of ‘Annual
appropriations’, ‘Special
appropriations’ and ‘Other’, and also
show capital directly attributable to
the programme?
- Is the level of information proposed to
be included in performance plans
appropriate and useful? How can this
be improved?
The RDCs assume that this question is more appropriately dealt with by Portfolio Departments.
The RDCs assume that this level of reporting is at the Portfolio Department level.
Yes – noting our earlier comments concerning the importance of providing the RDCs with the ability to tailor
aspects of the performance plan to meet its operating environment and the expectations of its stakeholders..
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
- How much information and effort
should be required at each level of
reporting, especially where the
outcome, risk and complexity are
assessed as being low?
- If a performance plan was adopted,
what would be the key enablers for its
success?
- If a performance plan was adopted,
when might be an appropriate time
for its introduction?
Guidance on materiality thresholds would be useful.
Agree that low risk operations should generally require less reporting in line with ”earned autonomy”.
.
Guidance, training and flexibility. As noted earlier, it also critical that duplication with other processes is
avoided.
Financial Year 2016/2017
Entities:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development
Corporation, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Rural Industries
Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Grape and Wine
Authority.