• Home
• Skip to content

You are here:

• Home »
• Publications »
  • Annual Reports »
    • Annual Report 2001-02 »
      • Annual Report 2001-02 Appendices 4-12

Publications

• Publications by Date
• Publications by Topic
• Publications by Team
• Publications by A to Z
• Annual Reports
• Annual Report 2007-08
• Annual Report 2006-07
• Annual Report 2005-06
• Annual Report 2004-05
• Annual Report 2003-04
• Annual Report 2002-03
• Annual Report 2001-02
• Annual Report 2000-01
• Annual Report 1999-00
• Annual Report 1998-99
• Annual Report 1997-98
• Annual Report 1996-97
• Annual Report 1995-96
• Budgets
• Regulatory Plans

Annual Report 2001-02 Appendices 4-12

Appendix 4

External Scrutiny

As part of the overall accountability framework, the Department's operations are subject to external scrutiny from a variety of sources. For example, judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals as well as reports of parliamentary committees, the Auditor-General and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Reports of parliamentary committee inquiries can address a range of matters including legislation proposals, legal and policy work, broad community-interest issues of both direct and indirect relevance to the Department, and aspects of operational infrastructure i.e. the support systems, processes and procedures which enable the Department to perform its functions efficiently and effectively. During 2001-02 there were no reports by parliamentary committees directly related to the operations of the Department. Further information on parliamentary committee consideration of other types of matters impacting on the Department appears in the "Report on Performance", against relevant departmental outputs.

During the reporting period the Auditor-General did not issue any reports on the operations of the Department, nor did the Ombudsman raise any substantive issues. Details of judicial decisions having significant impact on the Department, follow.

Judicial decisions in 2001-02 having significant impact on the operations of the Department

Freedom of Information

On 23 May 2002, the High Court of Australia determined that a decision to issue a conclusive certificate under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) was subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) and under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Shergold v Tanner [2002] HCA 19). The Court consequently dismissed an appeal brought by the then Secretary of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB). The Secretary had argued that the comprehensive and specific provisions in the FOI Act for limited merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal precluded judicial review.

This case arose out of an application under the FOI Act by Lindsay Tanner MP for access to certain documents held by the then DEWRSB. DEWRSB decided to refuse access to certain documents and to issue conclusive certificates under the FOI Act certifying that release of the documents would not be in the public interest. Mr Tanner subsequently commenced proceedings under the ADJR Act in the Federal Court for judicial review of that decision. The matter went to the Full Federal Court on the question of whether the disputed decisions were reviewable. The Federal Court held that they were reviewable. The Secretary of DEWRSB then sought and obtained special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The High Court's decision has the effect of limiting the operation of conclusive certificates under the FOI Act. The certificates will establish conclusively the facts they certify in merit review processes in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the FOI Act. However, a decision to issue a conclusive certificate may itself be open to judicial invalidation on the grounds of a defect in the decision-making process.

This decision has clarified previous uncertainty surrounding the interaction between the specific and limited review provisions of the FOI Act and the more general principles of judicial review of administrative decisions under the ADJR Act.

The case will to the Federal Court for decision on the substantive issues.

International Child Abduction

The High Court case of DP v Commonwealth Central Authority; JLM v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services involved two applications made under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("the Convention") for the return of children to Greece and Mexico, respectively.

The Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 provide that a court may refuse to make an order for return if a person opposing return establishes that one of the prescribed grounds is made out. The provision, which implements Article 13 of the Convention, is intended to put the onus of establishing that a defence to return exists on the person who is opposing the return.

The majority of the High Court concluded that an exception to return may be established if sufficient uncontradicted credible evidence supporting the exception is produced by a party opposing return.

It has been suggested that a possible consequence of the decision is that central authorities may have to consider more carefully whether it is necessary to put contradictory evidence forward at trial, to rebut evidence put by a parent opposing return. Failure to do so might mean that a court has no choice but to accept an assertion from the opposing parent that is based on credible and compelling evidence.

Appendix 5

Service Charters

The Attorney-General's Department Service Charter and associated complaints handling policy have been in operation since June 1998. The departmental charter is supplemented by charters covering International Child Abduction, Child Support and Civil Procedure (ICACSCP) and the Trade Measures Review Secretariat (TMRS).

Apart from the departmental areas covered by their own specific service charter and the Australian Protective Service, the Attorney-General's Department has limited direct dealings with members of the public. The Department serves the Government, and through it, the people of Australia.

The general departmental service charter continues to be provided to new recruits at induction. The departmental and ICACSCP charters can be viewed on the Department's website, http://www.ag.gov.au/. The TMRS charter can be viewed on http://www.law.gov.au/tmro. All charters of the Department are available as hard copy to clients.

The following table sets out the customer service standards contained in each charter and the extent to which they were met during 2001-02.

* In addition to the departmental complaints handling procedures, the Australian Protective Service also refers to instructions governing complaints handling detailed in Chapter 3 of General Orders, and Chapter 9 of the System Management Guidelines. These documents supplement the departmental complaints handling process with regard to the specific role of the Australian Protective Service and their client dealings, and can be obtained by contacting the Manager, Standards and Integrity Section or can be viewed on the Australian Protective Service homepage. They also serve to support internal management practices by ensuring that all accountability requirements are met fulfilling statutory obligations as set out under the Australian Protective Service Act 1987, as well as client management requirements to meet Australian Protective Service accreditation to International Quality Assurance Standards (ISO 9002).

** Qualitative information obtained relating to these performance standards (including complaints data, compliments, and feedback from staff/client focus groups and surveys) indicates that they are being maintained.

Clients of the Department and those of the ICACSCP and TMRS can make a complaint or provide feedback in writing, via e-mail, by telephone or in person. Staff of the Department, wherever possible, are encouraged to resolve complaints immediately. In those instances where a resolution cannot be reached at the time of the complaint, the complaint systems for all three charters require the recording of the following information for investigation and appropriate actioning:

• the Division and officer receiving the complaint;
• the date of the complaint;
• the complainants name, address and contact number;
• how the complaint was made;
• the resolution/decision;
• how the complainant was notified of the resolution/decision and date;
• review of the decision (if required);
• decision/comments/remedial action;
• reviewing officer's name and title;
• appeal rights advised (yes/no).

Of the nine complaints received by the Department during the reporting period, all were directed at the Australian Protective Service. Three complaints were reconciled within 10 working days, with the remainder taking longer to reconcile due to the complexity of the issues and the requirement for further investigation.

Appendix 6

Consultancy Services

Policy on selection and engagement of consultants

Departmental policy requires that the approving officer must ensure that the selection processes for consultants will promote open and effective competition to the extent practicable. Departmental selection procedures detail criteria which are to be addressed and also refer to the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines which outline core policies and principles for purchasing activities, including engaging consultants. All consultants were engaged by the Department in accordance with appropriate principles and practices.

Consultancy services are one particular type of service delivered under a contract for services. They are distinguished from other contracts for services by the nature of the work performed. A consultant is an entity, whether an individual, a partnership or a corporation, engaged to provide professional, independent and expert advice or services. Typically, the term consultancy services is used to describe the application of expert profes sional skills to investigate or diagnose a defined issue or problem; carry out defined research, reviews or evaluations; or provide independent advice, information or creative solutions to assist the agency in management decision making.

A consultancy contract defines the nature and purpose of the task to be performed but not (in any detail) the manner in which the task is to be performed. By contrast, other (non-consultancy) contracts for services are far more restrictive in the degree of latitude afforded to the contractor.

Details of contractors e.g. those engaged through employment agencies for short-term relief or other purposes, are not included, in this report.

The Requirements for Annual Reports for Department's, Executive Agencies and FMA Act Bodies specify that the only detailed information required to be published in the annual report relates to new consultancy contracts valued at $10 000 or more. Information on consultancies let during 2001-02 of value between $2000 and $10 000 can be provided on request.

Summary of information on consultancies

Details in relation to new consultancy contracts of value $10 000 or more, let during 2001-02

Selection Key

(a) Publicly advertised.

(b) Public tender.

(c) Selective tender.

(d) Direct engagement of recognised and pre-eminent expert.

(e) Direct engagement of consultant previously undertaking closely related work for Department.

(f) Direct engagement of consultant known to have requisite skills where the value of the project did not justify expense or delay associated with seeking tenders.

Justification Key

(A) Special skills not available within the Department.

(B) Special skills available within the Department but because of other staff resource priorities consultant engaged.

(C) Participation of outside professional is a requirement of the Department of Finance and Administration.

(D) Requirement to use particular consultant a condition of conducting project for client.

(E) Need for independent study or assessment.

(F) Need for change agent or facilitator.

(G) Need for rapid access to latest technology or experience with application.

Notes:

(1) In some instances additional costs for expenses and travel have been met from ordinary departmental administrative cost allocations. Resources are not available to conduct the detailed searches of individual financial transaction records required to identify such costs.

(2) * identifies consultancy also reported in Appendix 7 'Advertising and Market Research'.

Appendix 7

Advertising and Market Research

Under section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Department is required to disclose payments to specific types of organisations. The organisations are categorised into advertising agencies, market research organisations, polling organisations, direct mail organisations, and media advertising organisations. The categories of organisation to which payments were not made during 2001-02 were creative advertising agencies and polling organisations. Details of payments to other organisations are as follows:

Key

(a) Paid to a creative advertising agency to develop advertising campaign

(b) Paid to a market research organisation

(c) Paid to a polling organisation

(d) Paid to a direct mail organisation, creative agency or direct marketing agency for the creation and distribution of direct mail materials

(e) Paid to a media advertising organisation for placing government advertising (both campaign and non?campaign) in the media

Note:

(1)* identifies consultancy let for advertising and market research that is also reported in Appendix 6 'Consultancy Services'.

Appendix 8

Staff Profile

The tables below show staffing details for the Department at 30 June 2001 and 30 June 2002. This will be the last occasion on which staffing details for the Australian Protective Service will be shown, as it is now part of the Australian Federal Police.

Table 8.1 provides a breakdown by location (region), broad-banded classification and gender for the core Department and the Australian Protective Service. It includes all staff employed by the Department under the Public Service Act 1999, i.e. ongoing (previously described as permanent), non-ongoing (previously described as temporary or casual), full-time and part-time. Part-time staff are shown as full-time equivalents.

Table 8.2 shows staff numbers by head count, that is, part-time staff are shown as the number of people employed, not full-time equivalents. Therefore, there is no correlation between the total figures in the two tables. The total figures in Table 8.1 will be smaller than those shown in Table 8.2.

For the purposes of these tables, part-time staff are defined as staff members who work less than the standard hours per week (standard hours being 36 hours 45 minutes).

Only those staff who were paid by the Department are counted for the purposes of these tables. Staff who were on leave without pay are not counted.