3.20 Even after the Committee's report has been tabled, there may be follow up work for Defence to do. The Infrastructure Management System has generally sufficient information on what must be done to prepare for the referral of a project to the Committee and for the public hearing, but there is a general lack of guidance on what should be done following the publication of the report and grant of Parliamentary approval. If the Committee's report includes recommendations that certain tasks be undertaken this needs to be addressed. In addition, Defence is required to keep the Committee informed of any significant changes to projects. A regular, documented, review mechanism would assist Defence to report back to the Committee on action taken in response to any recommendations made. The specifics of this process could be discussed with the Committee Secretariat and Finance, as these arrangements may be applicable to other agencies.
3.21 The Committee made a total of 32 recommendations in relation to the 10 direct procurement projects in the ANAO's sample. The Committee requested that a report from Defence be provided for 12 of the 32 recommendations. The recommendations related to:
• information on contamination (two cases);
• information on water consumption and savings (two cases);
• further advice as to costs or savings (three cases);
• more specific details of buildings to be demolished (three cases);
• the need to update the Committee if the project changed (one case); and
• Defence to provide development funding details to the Committee (one case).
3.22 Table 3.3 identifies which projects required Defence to report back to the Committee on recommendations made on the direct procurement projects. Some of the reports cannot be provided until the project is finished or substantially underway35. Given the long term nature of some of the projects, and the requirement to report to the Committee at various stages, and at the end of the project in some cases, a regular review mechanism would support enhanced implementation of those Committee recommendations where feedback to the Committee is required.
Table 3.3
Committee recommendations and reporting
Project | Number of recommendations (a) | Date of Report | Feedback to Committee |
Holsworthy: Special Operations Working Accommodation and Base Redevelopment | 1 | Aug 2005 | Not required |
RAAF Amberley Stage 2 | 1 | Nov 2005 | Not required |
RAAF College Relocation: RAAF East Sale and RAAF Wagga | 2 | Nov 2005 | Yes, April 2007 |
Enoggera: Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Facilities | 1 | Aug 2006 | Not required |
Shoalwater Bay: Shoalwater Bay Training Area Facilities Upgrade | 2 | Sep 2006 | Not required |
Watsonia: Defence School of Signals | 5 | May 2007 | Not at this stage(b) |
Townsville: Lavarack Barracks Stage 4 | 10 | May 2007 | Not at this stage(b) |
RMAF Butterworth: Australian Defence Force Facilities Rationalisation | 1 | Aug 2007 | Not required |
RAAF Pearce Stage 1 | 4 | Aug 2007 | Not at this stage(b) |
RAAF Amberley Stage 3 | 5 | Sep 2007 | Not at this stage(b) |
Source: ANAO analysis of Defence documents
Notes: | (a) The Committee made a total of 32 recommendations in relation to these projects but a request for Defence to report back to the Committee was included in only 12 of these recommendations. (b) Feedback required, but as noted in paragraph 3.22, reports cannot be provided until the project is finished or substantially underway. |
_____________________________________________________________________________
35 For example, the Committee requested that Defence report back on any savings associated with the redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks. The identification of savings is not likely to occur until after the project has been completed.