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: pmra@finance.gov.au

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.