Had this arrangement applied since 2002, it is likely that the pool of staff available to service other Australian Government agencies would today be inadequate due to the growth in demand from other agencies for GA specialist services. Evidence from stakeholder consultations undertaken as part of this Review generally supported implementation of inter-agency cost recovery arrangements. A key feature GA’s of many these arrangements is the use of formal agreements or memorandums that set out the key principles, roles and responsibilities of each party. experience, supported by GA’s stakeholder feedback, in fact appears to commend this as a general approach. One advantage noted by the CEO of GA is that the agreements assist internal executive management by providing key benchmarks for comparing project progress and performance. The Review noted in particular that the isolated cases of client problems were also cases where such an agreement was not in place. The Review considers that, overall, these arrangements are working satisfactorily and that a shift to direct funding (or partial funding) of GA for services sponsored by other portfolios would be a regressive step in terms of assisting alignment between policy priorities and resource allocation. Areas for improvement in inter-agency cost recovery agreements include addressing the and of projects that require the acquisition of specialist ‘ramping up’ ‘ramping down’ capabilities and/or have ongoing costs once the main work is completed. Section 31 revenues for 2009-10 show an unexpected jump between the May 2010 prediction of $38.8 million and the final outcome of $56.1 million. A significant reason for this appears to be a distortion created by transactions related to funding by DRET of agreements with State and Territory governments where funding for CCS initiatives was – transferred to GA under Section 31 substantially for on-payment to the relevant states and territories. These moneys appear in GA accounts as if they were revenue yet they do not represent payment for GA services or products. It would seem more practical for a GA officer to either be authorised to draw from a DRET appropriation or to advise an appropriate DRET officer when payments are required.
Had this arrangement applied since 2002, it is likely that the pool of staff available to service other Australian Government agencies would today be inadequate due to the growth in demand from other agencies for GA specialist services. Evidence from stakeholder consultations undertaken as part of this Review generally supported GA’s implementation of inter-agency cost recovery arrangements. A key feature of many these arrangements is the use of formal agreements or memorandums that set out the key principles, roles and responsibilities of each party. GA’s experience, supported by stakeholder feedback, in fact appears to commend this as a general approach. One advantage noted by the CEO of GA is that the agreements assist internal executive management by providing key benchmarks for comparing project progress and performance. The Review noted in particular that the isolated cases of client problems were also cases where such an agreement was not in place. The Review considers that, overall, these arrangements are working satisfactorily and that a shift to direct funding (or partial funding) of GA for services sponsored by other portfolios would be a regressive step in terms of assisting alignment between policy priorities and resource allocation. Areas for improvement in inter-agency cost recovery agreements include addressing the ‘ramping up’ and ‘ramping down’ of projects that require the acquisition of specialist capabilities and/or have ongoing costs once the main work is completed. Section 31 revenues for 2009-10 show an unexpected jump between the May 2010 prediction of $38.8 million and the final outcome of $56.1 million. A significant reason for this appears to be a distortion created by transactions related to funding by DRET of agreements with State and Territory governments – where funding for CCS initiatives was transferred to GA under Section 31 substantially for on-payment to the relevant states and territories. These moneys appear in GA accounts as if they were revenue yet they do not represent payment for GA services or products. It would seem more practical for a GA officer to either be authorised to draw from a DRET appropriation or to advise an appropriate DRET officer when payments are required.
strategic_review_ga.docx