PrintGovernance
During 2007–08, the department continued to invest in good governance at all levels. Following an independent review of the department‘s governance arrangements in 2006–07, improvements have been made to the governance framework, including the functioning and strategic focus of the key governance committees. Information and education about values, standards and accountabilities have been expanded and there are robust frameworks in place for better managing stakeholder and client relationships, and departmental performance generally.
The department‘s governance system emphasises the core elements of holistic governance in the department—leadership, strategic direction, accountability, performance, controls and assurance. Together these elements work to support the department‘s strategic themes of being an open and accountable organisation, having fair and reasonable dealings with clients and having well trained and supported staff.
The department aims to ensure staff have a good understanding of the department‘s governance system. People in leadership roles have the further responsibility of ensuring that those in their teams are clear about the policies, procedures and business rules that govern their work and that all staff should participate fully in departmental performance management, planning, accountability and assurance processes.
Key governance committees
The key governance committee framework is an important element of the department‘s arrangements for managing its business, strategic priorities and risks. The framework works with the department‘s organisational structure to ensure effective decision making, management and oversight of the department‘s operations and performance.
Following the review of governance undertaken in 2006–07, a number of adjustments were made to the department‘s governance committees to streamline their operation and improve their focus on strategic issues.
The Executive Committee is the most senior governance committee in the department. The key issues considered by the committee include matters of strategic or operational significance, setting organisational directions, priorities and plans, policy and strategy, financial management, change management, organisational performance, corporate management issues and strategic evaluations.
The Corporate Leadership Group (CLG) provides a forum for key senior officers covering the range of departmental operations to focus on strategic policy and operational matters; promote collaboration and coordinated activity across the department; and share information focusing on business delivery, innovation and improvements. The CLG provides a key source of considered advice to the secretary to enable effective and informed decision making.
The remaining key governance committees are the:
- Departmental Audit Committee
- Values and Standards Committee
- Systems Committee
- DIAC Performance Management Committee
- People Management Committee.
Leadership and governance
During 2007–08, the Prominent Speaker Program continued. This program invites prominent individuals from the public, private, academic and community sectors to present to the senior leadership group on a range of topics on a two-monthly basis.
The objective of the current series—on governance and leadership—is to develop and strengthen the leadership group‘s appreciation of its central role in promoting good governance throughout the organisation. Together with other development initiatives, the series strongly promotes governance as ‘core business’ for the leadership group and the importance of having a strong and contemporary appreciation of policy issues.
Participation in the program by the senior leadership group has been strong and reflects the high value placed on providing strong leadership and support to staff, through developing a better understanding of our governance responsibilities and the attitudes and behaviours that underpin them.
The program in 2007–08 included presentations by:
- Mr Brian Pink—Australian Statistician, Australian Bureau of Statistics
- Professor Ken Wiltshire—JD Story Professor of Public Administration, University of Queensland
- Ms Elizabeth Proust—company director and consultant
- Professor John McMillan—Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman
- Mr Richard Towle—Regional Representative, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
- Mr Terry Moran AO—Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
- Professor Raimond Gaita—Professor of Moral Philosophy at King‘s College, University of London and Professor of Philosophy at the Australian Catholic University.
Risk management
During 2007–08, the department continued to integrate risk management practices into a range of governance activities, including business planning, contract management and internal audit planning. All divisions, state and territory offices and overseas regions had risk management plans in place in 2007–08 and reported every six months on any new risks, realised risks and on the status of planned controls. From this information, a departmental risk register has been developed.
A corporate risk profile was compiled and reviewed by the Departmental Audit Committee and endorsed by the Executive Committee. The corporate profile provided a high level view of the department‘s risks and a tool for prioritising and managing risks. The profile provides an opportunity for senior executives to review key risks and to inform the development of the planning and audit program.
The department provides training and distributes promotional material to raise awareness among staff of risk management principles and to promote an understanding and knowledge of the risk management framework. A network of risk management contacts in the department meet monthly to discuss risk management issues. A help desk is also available to assist staff in developing risk management plans.
In late 2007, as part of the commitment to ongoing improvement, a working group was established to conduct a review of the risk management framework. This review identified opportunities to strengthen risk management.
Quality assurance
The Governance and Assurance Branch continued to provide quality assurance training, advice and guidance on consistent standards in the design and review of quality assurance processes, enabling program managers and the Departmental Audit Committee to identify trends and emerging portfolio-wide risks.
The department has continued to increase the number of quality assurance processes in place across different business areas. Periodic reports are made to the Departmental Audit Committee on the level of compliance with controls and on remedial action proposed or undertaken to address identified issues.
An internal network group was established in 2007–08 to draw together departmental staff responsible for the development of quality assurance processes in their respective business areas. The group provides a forum for staff to share information and to gain an insight into issues, ideas and success stories on quality assurance activities on a regular basis.
Fraud control measures
During the year, oversight of the department‘s obligations under the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002, was passed from the Fraud, Integrity and Security Committee to the Departmental Audit Committee (DAC).
The objective of the DAC is to provide independent assurance and assistance to the secretary and the Executive Committee on the department‘s risk profile, fraud control plan, control and compliance framework, and its external accountability responsibilities.
The role of the DAC is outlined in more detail overleaf. However, with regard to fraud matters, the DAC is responsible for:
- ascertaining whether an effective fraud control plan is in place
- reviewing the plan and satisfying itself that the department has appropriate processes and systems in place to capture and effectively investigate fraud related information.
The department also established the Fraud Management Section with overarching responsibility for developing the framework and governance for fraud prevention, detection and investigation within the department, and to improve links with business planning, risk management and financial management. The section has responsibility for:
- strategic planning
- policy advice and support
- fraud training
- enhancing fraud analysis and reporting
- stakeholder relationship management.
The key actions of the section include:
- developing the overall governance and fraud management framework
- establishing a rolling program of fraud risk assessments to inform the Fraud Control Plan
- developing and implementing fraud performance measures
- establishing a centralised fraud risk register and implementing a suitable reporting framework
- developing and delivering an education and training program.
The current Fraud Control Plan 2006–08 identifies fraud prevention, detection, investigation, reporting and data collection processes that meet the needs of the department and comply with the guidelines.
Work commenced during the year on preparing the Fraud Control Plan 2008–10 as part of the department‘s obligations under the guidelines.
Preparation of the plan is one of the department‘s obligations in complying with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines which are issued under regulation 19 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997. The ultimate authority for the plan is the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
The plan categorises fraud into three broad types, namely, visa and citizenship, financial, and administrative fraud, based on the supporting legislation of each category and identifies a number of action items to address specific risks.
A fraud risk workshop was also undertaken which identified, at a high level, a range of fraud risk exposures which will be subject to more detailed examination during the life of the Fraud Control Plan 2008–10.
A draft framework was developed by the Fraud Management Section for clearance by the DAC. The framework will provide a roadmap for the implementation of an effective fraud control regime.
The department also consolidated governance, planning and assurance responsibilities, including fraud control, into one branch.
Departmental Audit Committee
The secretary established the Departmental Audit Committee in compliance with section 46 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act.
The committee provides independent assurance and assistance to the secretary and the Executive Committee on the department‘s risk profile, fraud control plan, control and compliance framework, and its external accountability responsibilities.
The Departmental Audit Committee Financial Statements Sub-Committee is appointed by, and reports to, the Departmental Audit Committee. The sub-committee is responsible for the oversight of the preparation of the annual financial statements, including facilitating resolution of any identified issues in a timely manner. The Departmental Audit Committee reviews and clears the annual financial statements before submission to the secretary.
The department works cooperatively with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to coordinate overall audit activity within the department, and to ensure there is no duplication of the audit effort. The ANAO is invited to attend Departmental Audit Committee and Departmental Audit Committee Financial Statements Sub-Committee meetings.
Internal audit
The internal audit function is managed by the Governance, Planning and Assurance Branch which reports directly to the secretary and operates under the authority of the Internal Audit Charter. The internal audit program is primarily delivered by the department‘s strategic partner, Ernst & Young. However, the department also manages a supplementary panel of external providers who undertake selected audits.
In April 2008, the department engaged the Institute of Internal Auditors to undertake an independent quality assessment of the internal audit function. The review examined the efficiency and effectiveness of internal auditing, opportunities for improvement and conformance to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.
The review found that ‘internal audit within the department is operating satisfactorily, and in most respects could be considered as representative of better practice in internal auditing; it is a well run internal audit activity‘. The general perception was that the internal audit section was well respected, seen as competent and professional in delivering its services and the work was described as being of good quality. The department fully complied with 44 of the 46 standards against which it was measured and there was partial compliance with the other two standards. This was seen as an excellent result.
