The enhanced Commonwealth
performance framework
2015–16 annual performance statements
LESSONS LEARNED
March 2017
This paper summarises progress on the development of annual performance
statements under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. It
identifies key learnings and includes examples of better practice to assist
Commonwealth entities to develop planning and performance reporting frameworks
and performance information.
Enquiries: [email protected]
2
Overview
In October 2016, Commonwealth entities published their first annual performance statements
in their 2015-16 annual reports, under the Public Governance, Performance and
Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act).1 Annual performance statements report on the planned
performance information in corporate plans and Portfolio Budget Statements. Their
publication completes the first full performance cycle under the enhanced Commonwealth
performance framework.
Commonwealth entities report, through their annual performance statements, on the extent
to which they have fulfilled the purpose(s) they articulate at the beginning of a reporting year
in their corporate plans. Commonwealth entities must also report on performance criteria in
their Portfolio Budget Statement (PBS), Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements or other
portfolio estimates statements.
The aim of annual performance statements is to provide a clear line of sight between
planned performance and actual performance over the reporting period (usually a financial
year). These performance results are published for reasons of accountability, but also help
entities review and plan their future activities. These planning processes may involve
engaging with responsible Ministers and Government more broadly.
This paper makes a range of observations about the 2015–16 annual performance
statements. It is based on a qualitative analysis against criteria outlined in Appendix A of 65
annual performance statements (see Appendix B).
Summary of observations
The 2015-16 annual performance statements are the first statements produced by
Commonwealth entities under the enhanced Commonwealth performance framework. To a
large extent, the quality of the 2015-16 annual performance statements were dependent on
the quality of the 2015-16 corporate plans, and particularly the quality of the performance
criteria contained within them.
To assist Commonwealth entities improve the quality of future annual performance
statements, the Department of Finance (Finance) has analysed 65 annual performance
statements across a range of Commonwealth entities. To ensure continuity, and in
recognition of the close relationship that should exist between an entity’s corporate plan and
annual performance statements, Finance has sought to cover the same entities that Finance
looked at in its analysis of 2015-16 corporate plans.2 This analysis has been undertaken to
identify key learnings that can be shared with Commonwealth entities to help improve the
quality of annual performance statements over time.3
1 Annual performance statements are only required to be produced by Commonwealth entities. Commonwealth companies are
not affected. 2 This analysis was published in Corporate Plans 2015-16: Lessons learned, and is available on the Finance website. 3 The methodology used to undertake this analysis is at Appendix A.
3
In overall terms, the following key learnings have been identified:
Creating a clear read between performance documents enhances accessibility and
minimises confusion.
Improving the quality of performance criteria in corporate plans and PBSs is fundamental
to improving the quality of the annual performance statements.
Entities can still produce good ‘technical’ annual performance statements, even with poor
quality performance criteria.
Entities should carefully consider the size and structure of annual performance statements
– concise annual performance statements are more accessible and make performance
information easier to understand.
Annual performance statements need to be clearly identified as such in annual reports –
section 39 of the PGPA Act requires accountable authorities of Commonwealth entities to
prepare annual performance statements.
Finance expects that the quality of annual performance statements will improve over the
coming reporting periods. Finance will continue to support the work of entities through
communities of practice, improved guidance and other assistance. With the publication of
each round of PBSs, corporate plans and annual performance statements, entities will have
opportunities to develop each of these elements so that they combine to tell a full
performance story.
Appendixes
Appendix A – 2015-16 annual performance statements quality assessment criteria.
Appendix B – 2015-16 annual performance statements included in qualitative analysis.
Appendix C – 2015-16 annual performance statements rated as relatively ‘good’ overall.
Appendix D - Examples of ‘clear reads’ between 2015-16 annual performance statements
and other performance documentation.
Appendix E - Examples of good ‘technical’ presentation of 2015-16 annual performance
statements.
Appendix F - Examples of concise 2015-16 annual performance statements.
4
KEY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE 2015-16 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STATEMENTS PROCESS
The importance of ensuring a ‘clear read’ between
performance documents
Annual performance statements are intended to improve transparency and accountability by
providing a direct relationship between the performance criteria committed to by entities in
their corporate plans and PBSs, and the reporting of end of year results against these
criteria. The annual performance statements should provide the reader with a concise,
comprehensive and accurate picture of an entity’s performance in achieving its purposes
over a specific reporting period.
A number of observations on clear read can be made from our review of 2015-16 annual
performance statements.
Consistency in presentation
A number of entities have not presented the performance criteria in their annual performance
statements in the same order that they used in their corporate plans and PBSs. While not
necessarily a negative, particularly for smaller entities, for larger, more complex entities,
changing the order in which information is presented in the various performance documents
can disrupt the read between these documents. Links to annual performance statements
where Finance’s analysis indicated this was done well are provided in Appendix D.
Mapping across documentation
A related matter is accuracy in mapping criteria across the various performance documents.
To help readers find where the performance criteria originated, Finance guidance suggests
that entities provide coordinates against each performance criteria in their annual
performance statements to allow readers to track the performance criteria back to the source
document. Many entities did not do this well, to the detriment of a clear read between the
documents.
A significant number of entities did not report against all of the performance criteria in their
corporate plan and portfolio statements, as required by Section 16F of the
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (PGPA Rule). This is the
most common non-compliance issue identified in our review of 2015-16 annual performance
statements. It is also important that entities do not modify the performance criteria when
reporting unless clearly necessary e.g. where something fundamental has changed
necessitating modification such as a late government decision. The targets that have been
committed to in corporate plans or PBSs should not be altered in the annual performance
statements. If a change is necessary then the entity should clearly identify the change and
5
explain why it was made when reporting the results. See the Department of Human Services
example in Appendix D.
Clear alignment to entity purpose(s)
As described above, the intent of the annual performance statements is to provide the reader
with a coherent and concise snapshot of an entity’s performance in meeting its purpose(s).
The notion of an entity’s purpose(s) is a key concept under the Commonwealth performance
framework.
Sub-section 16(1) of the PGPA Rule states that ‘the accountable authority of an entity must
measure and assess the entity’s performance in achieving the entity’s purposes in the
reporting period in accordance with the method of measuring and assessing the entity’s
performance in the reporting period that was set out in the entity’s corporate plan’.
An entity’s purpose(s) represents the objectives, functions or role of an entity. As an entity’s
purpose(s) is the focus of an entity’s corporate plan, it also provides the focus for
development of entity performance criteria, which are intended to test the entity’s
effectiveness in meeting its purposes(s).
To present an insightful performance story in their annual performance statement, entities
need to weave together their performance information to present a narrative that
demonstrates how effective they have been in meeting their purposes, including where they
have struck difficulties or encountered problems. The focus on entity purpose(s) is crucial.
Finance’s analysis of 2015-16 annual performance statements shows that many entities
failed to adequately define their purpose(s) in their annual performance statements. Without
this focus many annual performance statements fail to present a coherent performance story.
The Resource Management Guides for annual reports (RMG No. 135 and RMG No. 136),
provided entities with a suggested format for the new annual performance statements for
non-corporate and corporate Commonwealth entities. This format was very deliberately
orientated towards entity purpose(s) for the reasons detailed above.
Examples of annual performance statements with clear articulation of purpose is provided at
Appendix D.
Need to align performance criteria across the corporate plan and PBS
The requirement to include performance criteria in both corporate plans and PBSs presents a
challenge when managing content. As the performance criteria in each document ‘must’ be
reported against, any discrepancy between them must also be reflected in the annual
performance statements. Reporting against divergent or inconsistent performance criteria
causes confusion.
Ideally, the performance criteria in the corporate plan and PBS should be complementary.
Entities are required to provide only one (or more if they wish) performance criteria in the
PBS against each existing program; although for new programs or material changes to
existing programs, a full suite of performance information is required. These PBS
6
performance criteria can then be carried across and built upon, to provide extra ‘granularity’,
if needed, in the corporate plan.
Maintaining alignment can be challenging when an entity wishes to revise its performance
criteria. This is best done sequentially at the beginning of a reporting period, rather than at a
point during a reporting period. As the PBS is produced first in the reporting cycle, proposed
changes to the performance criteria should be introduced initially through this document. The
corporate plan can then build on the performance criteria included in the PBS to provide
greater coverage and detail where needed. The corporate plan should still be regarded as
the primary performance planning document in the performance framework.
The advantage of this approach is that it ensures that a consistent set of performance criteria
is carried through the full reporting period. However, this approach requires entities to plan
ahead and manage the transition between reporting periods. During this transition, entities
should bear in mind that they will still need to report against the previous reporting period’s
performance criteria in the relevant annual performance statements. Entities may wish to
footnote any future changes in the performance criteria in their annual performance
statements.
While the above approach is recommended for revising performance criteria in a controlled
setting, there may still be instances where entities are required to change performance
criteria during the middle of a reporting period. An example would be where an entity needs
to update its corporate plan because of major changes in its operations, caused by
machinery of government changes or major changes in government policy. In these
instances, it may be appropriate for entities to seek to replace ‘redundant’ PBS criteria with
new, more appropriate criteria in a revised corporate plan (see section 16E of the PGPA
Rule 2014), again with a clear articulation of the reasoning behind the changes.
In circumstances where outcomes remain unclear over extended periods of time, entities can
explain the situation in their annual performance statements. That is explain why reporting
against the designated performance criteria was not possible for that reporting period.
Improving the quality of annual performance statements by
improving the quality of performance criteria in corporate plans and PBSs
Fundamentally, if a corporate plan or a PBS contains poor performance criteria, it will be
difficult for an entity to produce high quality annual performance statements. While this does
not preclude an entity from producing good ‘technical’ annual performance statements (as
discussed below), if the performance criteria do not generate information that provides
insights into the performance of the entity, then it will be difficult for an entity to convincingly
demonstrate its effectiveness.
A good annual performance statement should provide the reader with a concise snapshot of
the entity’s effectiveness in achieving its purpose(s). It does this by reporting against well-
defined performance criteria in its corporate plans and PBS. The nature and scope of the
performance criteria reported against should be determined by the nature and scope of the
7
activities the entity is undertaking in pursuit of its purpose(s). A good annual performance
statement will demonstrate how an entity is performing against its main activities. Collectively
this will coalesce into a performance story that demonstrates the success achieved and the
issues encountered by the entity in seeking to achieve its purpose(s). Entities will have difficulty
doing so without access to good quality performance information generated from
comprehensive, well designed, quality performance criteria.
Producing good ‘technical’ annual performance statements
Good annual performance statements will have both conceptual and technical aspects.
Some annual performance statements may be able to draw upon good performance
information generated from a comprehensive suite of performance criteria. Other entities
may not be as fortunate. Whatever the case, the quality of the annual performance
statements is still dependant on doing a good ‘technical’ job of presenting the available
information as effectively as possible. Having good quality performance criteria is a
necessary but insufficient pre-condition for good quality annual performance statements.
Entities with poor performance criteria can still enhance the technical aspects of their annual
performance statements to tell an insightful performance story.
Our analysis of 2015-16 annual performance statements provided examples where, even
with limited performance information, technical improvements were still able to be made. For
instance, many entities presented performance results with little or no situational context.
Performance results were simply reported as met or unmet, without further discussion of
what this actually means, providing little insight into entity performance. What does met or
unmet really mean? What were the reasons for a performance criteria failing to be achieved?
Were there targets incorporated into the measure? If so, why was that target chosen and
what does it represent? If no targets were specified what other information can be included in
the results to give it relative meaning. For example an historical representation of past year
results can provide useful context.
Where performance criteria are poor, remedial action can be undertaken to help
compensate. For instance, if a measure is focused on outputs, and not outcomes, then the
entity may wish to engage in further analysis of the results to try to explain what success in
achieving the output measure may mean, with respect to achieving its broader outcomes and
purposes. Or an entity can use its analysis section to help explain the entity’s operational
context. In particular, a sophisticated analysis of the entity’s operational environment can
compensate somewhat for poor performance information.
Similarly, it is important to ensure that all aspects of the existing performance criteria are
reported against and that the performance criteria are not changed in the reporting. If entities
feel compelled to change aspects of existing performance criteria, such as targets, when
reporting, then they need to explain the reason for the change. For example, having a
performance target against a performance criteria in a corporate plan and PBS of 85 per cent
changed to 75 per cent, and then declared as met, without an explanation, is not a
reasonable or proper reporting of results.
To ensure that there is continuity between the results reported in annual performance
statements and the performance criteria listed in earlier corporate plans/PBSs, it is important
8
that entities continue to make their older corporate plans/PBSs publicly available. Our review
turned up instances where 2015-16 corporate plans had been removed from websites,
making a comparison between the corporate plan and annual performance statements
impossible. The ability to make this comparison is important to ensure the integrity of the
system.
Appendix E provides examples from 2015-16 annual performance statements of good
technical presentation.
Size and structure of annual performance statements
The large size of some of the annual performance statements presents issues for the reader.
The intent of the annual performance statements is to provide a concise, comprehensive and
accurate overview of an entity’s performance.
Finance’s analysis has shown that a significant number of 2015-16 annual performance
statements are large in size. The size of the annual performance statements is driven, to
some extent, by the size of the entity’s business as well as the performance methodologies
used. For instance, the annual performance statements of entities that use case studies are
typically larger than those who don’t.
Another potential reason for the large size of many annual performance statements is the
number of performance criteria that are reported against. Where the size of annual
performance statements is considered to be an issue, consideration should be given to
rationalising the number of performance criteria entities have committed to. This should not
be at the expense of quality of coverage, given that entities should report against all
significant activities they engage in. But with two years of experience with the enhanced
Commonwealth performance framework, entities may now be better placed to review existing
data collections and assessment methodologies to focus on information that is truly
insightful.
Some entities have chosen to supplement their annual performance statements with a
broader performance discussion in their annual report. This requires a high level of editorial
control but can be effective if done well. The annual performance statements must still meet
the minimum requirements of the PGPA Rule, and provide an appropriate depth of analysis
of the performance results. Examples of this approach are provided at Appendix F.
Clearly identifying annual performance statements in annual
reports
We have identified a small number of instances where entities have failed to present
discrete, easily identifiable annual performance statements in their annual reports.
Under section 39 of the PGPA Act, annual performance statements are required to be
provided by the accountable authorities of Commonwealth entities as soon as practicable
after the end of each reporting period. Section 39 also requires a copy of the annual
9
performance statements to be included in entities annual reports. Section 16F of the
PGPA Rule details the minimum requirements for annual performance statements.
Ideally, annual performance statements should be able to found in the table of contents of
each annual report. Most entities have done this.
10
Appendix A
Annual performance statements - Quality Assessment
Quality criteria Assessment
Results –
appropriateness
Poor (1)
Annual performance statements fail to present performance information that is relevant,
reliable and consistent, and which fails to adequately demonstrate the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of the entity in achieving its purposes.
Adequate (2)
Annual performance statements adequately present performance information that is
relevant, reliable and consistent, and which, in general terms, adequately demonstrates
the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the entity in achieving its purposes.
Good (3)
Annual performance statements comprehensively present performance information that
is relevant, reliable and consistent, and which clearly demonstrates the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of the entity in achieving its purposes.
Results – clear read Poor (1)
Annual performance statements fail to present a clear read back to the entity’s
corporate plan/PBS/PAES. The reporting fails to address all the components of the
performance criteria e.g. targets/defined deliverables etc.
Adequate (2)
Annual performance statements provide a clear read back to the entity’s corporate
plan/PBS/PAES. The reporting only partly addresses all of the components of the
performance criteria e.g. targets/defined deliverables etc.
Good (3)
Annual performance statements provide a clear read back to the entity’s corporate
plan/PBS/PAES. The reporting addresses all components of the performance criteria
e.g. targets/defined deliverables etc.
11
Analysis Poor (1)
Analysis, where relevant, fails to undertake actual analysis of macro factors that may
have contributed to entity’s performance.
Adequate (2)
Analysis, where relevant, draws a connection between the entity’s performance in
achieving its purposes and factors that may have contributed to the entity’s
performance, including changes to the entity’s purposes, activities or organisational
capability or the environment in which it operated.
Good (3)
Analysis, where relevant, demonstrates a level of sophistication in drawing a direct
connection between entity’s performance in achieving its purposes and factors that may
have contributed to the entity’s performance and indicates how these factors will inform
the ongoing operations and performance of the entity.
Structure/Presentation Poor (1)
Annual performance statements are not identifiable and/or follows an illogical structure
that is difficult to read or understand.
Adequate (2)
Annual performance statements, are identifiable, follow a logical structure, and are not
difficult to read or understand.
Good (3)
Annual performance statements are clearly identifiable and create a clear read from
corporate plans/PBS to annual performance statements. It also clearly identifies the
‘purpose’, the results are being reported for, and provides clear coordinates back to the
relevant corporate plan/PBS.
Overall quality Poor
Adequate
Good
12
Appendix B
List of entities 2015–16 annual performance statements included in qualitative analysis
Entity Portfolio Type of Commonwealth Entity
Australian Fisheries Management
Authority
Agriculture and Water Resources Non-Corporate
Department of Agriculture and
Water Resources
Agriculture and Water Resources Non-Corporate
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Attorney-General’s Non-Corporate
Attorney-General’s Department Attorney-General’s Non-Corporate
Australian Federal Police Attorney-General’s Non-Corporate
Department of Communications
and the Arts
Communication and the Arts Non-Corporate
Department of Defence Defence Non-Corporate
Department of Education and
Training
Education Non-Corporate
Tertiary Education Quality and
Standards Agency
Education Non-Corporate
Department of Employment Employment Non-Corporate
Fair Work Commission Employment Non-Corporate
Bureau of Meteorology Environment Non-Corporate
Department of the Environment
and Energy
Environment Non-Corporate
Australian Electoral Commission Finance Non-Corporate
Department of Finance Finance Non-Corporate
Future Fund Management Agency Finance Non-Corporate
Australian Trade and Investment
Commission (Austrade)
Foreign Affairs and Trade Non-Corporate
Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade
Foreign Affairs and Trade Non-Corporate
Department of Health Health Non-Corporate
Department of Human Services
Human Services (part of Social
Services)
Non-Corporate
13
Department of Immigration and
Border Protection
Immigration and Border Protection Non-Corporate
Department of Industry Innovation
and Science
Industry, Innovation and Science Non-Corporate
Geoscience Australia Industry, Innovation and Science Non-Corporate
Department of Infrastructure and
Regional Development
Infrastructure and Regional
Development
Non-Corporate
National Capital Authority Infrastructure and Regional
Development
Non-Corporate
Department of Parliamentary
Services
Parliamentary Department Non-Corporate
Department of the House of
Representatives
Parliamentary Department Non-Corporate
Department of the Senate Parliamentary Department Non-Corporate
Parliamentary Budget Office Parliamentary Department Non-Corporate
Australian National Audit Office Prime Minister and Cabinet Non-Corporate
Australian Public Service
Commission
Prime Minister and Cabinet Non-Corporate
Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet
Prime Minister and Cabinet Non-Corporate
Department of Social Services Social Services Non-Corporate
Australian Prudential Regulation
Authority (APRA)
Treasury Non-Corporate
Australian Securities and
Investments Commission
Treasury Non-Corporate
Australian Taxation Office Treasury Non-Corporate
Commonwealth Grants
Commission
Treasury Non-Corporate
Department of the Treasury Treasury Non-Corporate
Department of Veterans’ Affairs Veterans’ Affairs (part of Defence) Non-Corporate
Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority
Agriculture and Water Resources Corporate
Murray-Darling Basin Authority Agriculture and Water Resources Corporate
Australian Broadcasting
Corporation
Communications and the Arts Corporate
Australian Postal Corporation Communications and the Arts Corporate
14
National Library of Australia Communications and the Arts Corporate
Special Broadcasting Service
Corporation
Communications and the Arts Corporate
Royal Australian Navy Central
Canteens Board
Defence Corporate
Comcare Employment Corporate
Clean Energy Finance Corporation Environment Corporate
Director of National Parks Environment Corporate
Commonwealth Superannuation
Corporation
Finance Corporate
Tourism Australia Infrastructure Corporate
Australian Institute of Marine
Science
Infrastructure and Regional
Development
Corporate
Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation
Industry, Innovation and Science Corporate
National Offshore Petroleum
Safety and Environmental
Management Authority
(NOPSEMA)
Industry, Innovation and Science Corporate
Australian Maritime Safety
Authority
Infrastructure and Regional
Development
Corporate
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Infrastructure and Regional
Development
Corporate
Anindilyakwa Land Council Prime Minister and Cabinet Corporate
Central Land Council Prime Minister and Cabinet Corporate
Northern Land Council Prime Minister and Cabinet Corporate
Tiwi Land Council Prime Minister and Cabinet Corporate
Torres Strait Regional Authority Prime Minister and Cabinet Corporate
Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
Council
Prime Minister and Cabinet Corporate
National Disability Insurance
Scheme Launch Transition Agency
(National Disability Insurance
Agency)
Social Services Corporate
Reserve Bank of Australia Treasury Corporate
Australian War Memorial Veterans’ Affairs (part of Defence) Corporate
15
Appendix C
Commonwealth entities with relatively ‘Good’ 2015-16 annual performance statements
Strengths:
Department of Employment
- Clear read - High level of relevant analytical detail - Clearly identifiable and discrete section within the Annual Report
Department of Health
- Clear read - Good balance of visual and text information - Use of trend data for context - Strong mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators
Department of Parliamentary Services
- Clear read - Methodology outlined in results - Failure to achieve targets is noted and explained - Clearly identifiable and discrete section within the Annual Report
Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade)
- Clear read - Presented in a clear tabular format - Provides broader analysis for each purpose after the relevant program table
Director of National Parks (DNP)
- Clear read - Focussed results section - Use of graphics to highlight continuity between performance documents
A number of entities achieved a rating of ‘Good’ for one or more aspects of their 2015-16
annual performance statements, but not an overall rating at this level.
16
Appendix D
THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING A CLEAR READ
Consistency in presentation
A better read between the annual performance statements and the corporate plan was
achieved when entities used the same conceptual logic for its performance information in
each document. A better quality annual performance statements follows the same logic as
the corporate plan for presenting its purpose and the strategic priorities/goals/themes it
pursues to achieve that purpose.
As discussed earlier, this is particularly beneficial for entities with a breadth and complexity of
functions. Finance observed that, while a number of entities had endeavoured to carry over
the presentation from the corporate plan, few did this well. Where it was done well, however,
it clearly strengthened the transparency of the annual performance statements. Links to
annual performance statements where this was done well are:
Department of Agriculture and Water Resource’s 2015-16 annual performance
statements has a consistent presentation compared with its 2015-16 corporate plan.
Agriculture has carried the logic of the eight strategic objectives under which it seeks to
achieve its purpose presented in its corporate plan, through to its annual performance
statements, creating a strong relationship between the documents.
Austrade, Australian Taxation Office, Director of National Parks and, the Department of
Employment.
Some entities used a numbering system for their performance criteria in their 2015-16
corporate plan that was carried through to their 2015-16 annual performance statements.
Where this approach is appropriate, the result is much easier mapping of performance
criteria from the corporate plan to the annual performance statements as well as allowing
readers to locate specific performance criteria. Links to annual performance statements
where this approach was followed are:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority, National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental
Management Agency (excerpt shown below) and Australian Federal Police.
17
NOPSEMA 2015-16 Annual Report (page 25 and 27)
The figure below shows how NOPSEMA numbered their performance criteria and provided a
‘snapshot’ of all the performance criteria being reported on at the front of their 2015-16
annual performance statements. The remainder of the annual performance statements
present detailed reporting of results (example given below).
18
19
Mapping across documentation
Department of Defence 2015-16 Annual Report (page 33)
Department of Defence gave readers clear coordinates (document and page numbers) to the
source of the performance criteria that it reported on. This was particularly useful for readers
seeking to navigate the volume of information produced by an entity of the size and
complexity of Defence.
20
Department of Human Services 2015-16 Annual Report (page 22)
As shown below, the Department of Human Services clearly alerted readers of its annual
performance statements to a change in target, where that change is documented and, why
the change was made.
21
Austrade 2015-16 Annual Report (page 20)
Austrade used the graphic below to explain the relationship between its three key
performance documents – the corporate plan, Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) and the
annual performance statements. This figure enhances the annual performance statements’
clear read and illustrates the alignment between the performance criteria between the
corporate plan and the PBS.
22
Clear alignment to entity purpose
Director of National Parks 2015-16 Annual Report (page 32)
The Director of National Parks (DNP) maintained a strong link to its purpose (expressed as
‘Vision’ below) throughout its 2015-16 annual performance statements. The performance
criteria reported on were relevant to the four goals pursued to achieve its purpose. The
structure presented below also provided the foundation for DNP’s 2015-16 corporate plan.
23
Australian National Audit Office Annual Report (page 45)
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has linked its analysis of its results to the
achievement of its purpose. This approach is used consistently throughout its annual
performance statements when presenting its results. Supplementary information about the
data sources used is also consistently provided.
24
Department of Parliamentary Services 2015-16 Annual Report (page 18)
The Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) has clearly identified its purpose in its
2015-16 annual performance statements. DPS also included a diagrammatic overview of
how its performance criteria relates to demonstrating its effectiveness in achieving its
purpose. A consistent focus on the purpose of DPS continues in the results reported and the
analysis of performance that follow.
25
Appendix E
Good ‘Technical’ Annual Performance Statements
Australian Fisheries Management Authority 2015-16 Annual Report (page 26-28)
AFMA presented its results against its designated performance criteria and then went on to
explain their significance. This included providing information on those stocks that were not
in the their actual target achieved category, and why they could not be included. This showed
that while they nearly met their target, there were still a number of other fisheries that were
not managed in that fashion and why.
26
Department of Parliamentary Services 2015-16 Annual Report (page 20 and 32)
The Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) included a section following the results
tables explaining the methodology used to assess results and an analysis section, which
provides additional information and context to allow a greater understanding of their results.
This includes explaining changes in the methodology used between reporting periods. These
sections are quite thorough and include a significant breakdown of all the various data
collection that contribute to the overall result. Failure to achieve targes is noted or explained
and in some cases actions aimed to rectify failures are detailed.
27
28
Appendix F
Concise 2015-16 annual performance statements
This attachment shows how three entities prepared relatively concise 2015-16 annual
performance statements.
Department of Employment 2015-16 Annual Report (page 65)
The Department of Employment’s (Employment) 2015-16 annual performance statements
are eight pages in length. It presented the target and measured result for each performance
criteria, followed by relatively concise supporting commentary for the results and an analysis
that addressed some macro factors that influenced the results. Overall, the annual
performance statements can be read as a discrete presentation of the entity’s performance in
2015-16. However, Employment also referred readers to other parts of the annual report for
further details about the performance results in the statements. Here the reader can find
more detail about the activities that have been measured as well as some case studies,
challenges in delivering activities and the outlook for the next reporting period.
29
Murray-Darling Basin Authority Annual Report 2015-16 (page 71)
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s (MDBA) 2015-16 annual performance statements are
10 pages in length. It provides tables that outline the achievement or progress of
performance criteria used by MDBA to measure performance in achieving it purpose through
its five strategic goals. The results include brief contextual comments, but also refer readers
to a more in depth discussion in the annual report on the activity that has been measured
and assessed. MDBA’s annual performance statements successfully work as a discrete
document that is an informative summary of the entity’s performance in 2015-16.
Austrade 2015-16 Annual Report (page 27)
Austrade’s 2015-16 annual performance statements are 14 pages in length and provide an
informative summary of its performance against its purpose. Austrade used a streamlined
tabular approach to the structure of its 2015-16 annual performance statements. Austrade
provide the reader with a page reference to access broader information (like trend data)
related to the results.