Mr Barrett --Mr Chairman, that is something that over a period of time we will have to look at. We have not appropriated on a program basis, as you are aware. There are some programs that do pretty well coincide with divisions or subdivisions, et cetera. There is a long history to the structures, particularly functional oriented structures, but there has not been a decision by the government to move to a program oriented appropriation methodology. What we have chosen to do, as you know, is cross-reference between program and functional classifications.

There are also requirements in terms of the commonality between the Commonwealth and states on overall public sector statistics and, of course, international conventions as well. I am not offering that as an excuse; I am simply saying they are factors to be taken into account. There was a deliberate decision at the time we moved to program management budgeting that we were not at the same time going to be appropriating on a program basis. I think it is a fair question. We will endeavour to look at the ramifications to see to what extent they can be better lined up.

CHAIRMAN --Initially, program budgeting started off being an experiment; it is well and truly bedded down now.

Mr Barrett --Yes.

CHAIRMAN --I guess I would like to know whether there is any good reason why the appropriation bills could not also change to the same basis to save the double accounting and the inevitable difficulties in comparing what is in the bills with what is in the budget measures statement.

Mr Barrett --Unfortunately, my experts in this area are not here. I am sure they have all gone. I can assure you we will address that issue.

CHAIRMAN --Could you take on board the suggestions I have made in my remarks on this matter about the budget measures statements. Do you have any immediate reaction to what I have expressed?

Mr Barrett --They will be looked at seriously. I will make a couple of observations. We did expect that the basic structures of this document would be what was adhered to by departments, if only to allow the various committees to go to standard tables where they could expect the same things to be shown. We did expect that, over and above that, departments would provide sufficient explanations of the kind that I think you were referring to. There is the question which you raised with me earlier about the $10 million-five per cent limits and what they might let through without sufficient explanation. We have not given all the forward years, of course, in previous program performance statements. I am not sure of the extent to which you would now be asking for them to be supplied. We were expecting--and that went out in the guidelines--that for any program changes, particularly through the budget, departments would have identified the performance measures associated with those budget changes. What you do not have, of course, under that framework are the performance measures for any other changes, which you rightly referred to.

The other comment that was made, I think by Senator Baume, was that in terms of looking ahead there seemed to be a problem because the annual reports--as you rightly said before--looked at the last year. So in essence this is the only document at the moment that allows the Senate to look at the coming year. We must look at that again to see what we can do to facilitate a better expression. We also said there should be appropriate notes in terms of any cross-portfolio arrangements so they can be brought to attention as well. I think Senator Gibson raised a question of the ASL--the staffing levels. He would like to get, and we can supply, three-year figures. If that was the case, if we extended that to all these figures, that would blow out this document reasonably considerably. At the end of the day, if the Senate committees decide that they want that focus over a time profile with explanations for changes, that is a different philosophy and approach than that encompassed in this document.

CHAIRMAN --I do not think anybody would want to go back to how thick the program performance statements had become. I would have thought that for each program our ASL comparisons from one year to the next would be appropriate.

Mr Barrett --Yes.

CHAIRMAN --Also, I think that some of the confusion that arose in some questions yesterday could have been avoided if in the listing of outlays from the current year to the coming year there was an extra column, the amount that was originally appropriated in the 1993-94 budget, then the final appropriation, which would be different if there had been something in the supplementary estimates, the estimated outcome, and then that could be compared with the proposed amount for the coming financial year. If variations could be explained, that would avoid some of the questions which have arisen in estimates committees. I know you have your substantial variations in the back of these statements but `and five per cent' means that some reasonably significant changes which raise questions from members of estimates committees could be explained. Maybe it needs to be `$10 million or five per cent'.

Mr Barrett --If one of my colleagues would like to make a further comment, it might be helpful.

Mr Bartos --Certainly we are happy to look at those comments and look at changing the way we do these portfolio budget measures statements. We did, as you indicated, consult fairly widely over them, but there is no substitute for testing in real life. It has always been our intention that we would take on board any commentary in relation to these and seek to improve the presentation that we are providing to committees such as this. I have had members of my branch attending several of the estimates committee hearings to see if they can pick up on any commentary. We are also going to be going through all of the Hansard reporting of all of the estimates committees to determine what the reaction is to the new presentation, and we want to consult again after the event in order to improve it. So certainly we want to take on board any commentary like that. That has always been our intention, and we will follow through with it.

Senator PARER --I would like to support Senator Coates. I was on the PAC with Senator Gibson when you made the presentation, Mr Bartos. The thing that surprised me when the reality came about was how flimsy the information is that is provided, as Senator Coates has said. We have been used to the bedded down program budgets and the detail that went with them. I think Mr Barrett mentioned that one of the problems we have now got is that here we have got a budget which takes us through to the end of June next year and we will not really know the detail until September next year, when the annual report comes out. This puts us in the strange position where we have looked at a full budget that does not give anything like the detail it did in the past and subsequently we are going to be looking at annual reports in September or October which refer to the past year again, as Mr Barrett has said. But even with the detail that is in that annual report, the information we have got here is not sufficient to make a comparison with that. So there is a lag of a year.

Mr Bartos --I think the general principle that we are trying to apply here is to provide committees such as this and also ministers and the public with the right information at the right time. The intention with these statements was to ensure that there was sufficient information in particular on every budget measure. Every decision taken by the government that amounts to a budget measure is reported on in these portfolio budget measures statements. The annual reporting is aiming to provide much better detail than has been provided in any reports in the past about program performance, and certainly the fact that we have brought forward the reporting deadline for annual reports from what used to be the case--December--and also the fact that they are accompanied by the financial statements.

Senator PARER --As you would recall, a lot of the discussion at the Public Accounts Committee was to do with the annual reports and whether the Auditor-General should have them audited by that time. That was all sorted out in the end. But there was very little discussion on what was in this. I think that is the problem.

Mr Barrett --Yes. The points you made are well made. There are two issues that I see as of concern. One is that the Senate--and the House, but the Senate in this case--has been asked to pass bills by 30 June. So senators want to be satisfied. It is not the case that they want to have a discussion some time subsequently, after the financial year is finished. I assume that is one concern. The other concern, as I hear it, is that, while there is endorsement of the need to have an explanation on the budget measures, the Senate estimates committees would like to have an explanation of any significant change that is not a budget measure. That to my mind is a fair enough request. I take Senator Coates's point of the $10 million or five per cent. That, to my mind, would not necessarily enlarge these documents much from what they are now, particularly if departments can home in and give concise explanations as to why the variations are occurring.

It is important, though, that program performance measures are identified for any new budget measure, so that you are able then to indicate whether you consider those to be reasonable and why they were chosen and that kind of argument. Then you can test it when you have the discussion later in an additional estimates context, et cetera, if that is a factor, at a time when you have the annual reports available, in this particular time frame.

I would just say on the other question that just occurred to me, Senator Coates, that quite clearly, if there were significant differences between a program format and the present appropriation formats, that would not be an easy matter for departments. There might be ramifications for the charts of accounts and the way which information is maintained in financial management information systems and the central Finance system. It is not an insurmountable point, but quite clearly there could be discontinuity in terms of time profiles of data going back over a period of time.

CHAIRMAN --But that happened as program budgeting was brought in anyway.

Mr Barrett --Yes, I agree.

Senator GIBSON --I would like to confirm the point you made earlier. Even though I asked for staffing levels going back in the past and projections into the future, I agree with the chairman that on an annual basis, if we had current year and the budget for next year, that would be sufficient.

Senator SHORT --I support you, Senator Coates, and Senators Gibson and Herron in their remarks. The problem it seems to me is twofold. First there is the fact that, with the paucity of information that we have got in the present documents, you really turn this estimates hearing--which is, in my view, the most important one because it is the estimates hearings being conducted before the appropriation bills are passed; that sets what we are supposed to be doing and is the whole reason for an estimates committee--into a very skinny exercise. The additional estimates hearings are going to become the big hearings. That seems to me to get it round the wrong way. In my view there needs to be much more balance. So the documentation point that the others have made I would fully support, although I am not sure where you strike the balance between the two. Certainly I have found these very hard to read and to follow. You jumped from one page to the other and there was not much there anyway.

The other point that I would make--this is one not so much for the Department of Finance as for the government and the Senate to look at--is the very limited amount of time made available for the estimates committee hearings this time, relative to the time that was available for hearings after the August budget. I do not know how you are going to get around that if we are going to have this requirement of the budget being passed by 30 June, which is a concept I basically agree with. We will, I think, have to look, as a senate, at our business timetable over this period so that we can feel confident we have allocated sufficient time to the estimates to make this hearing the important one that it would generally be perceived that it should be.

CHAIRMAN --I suspect that you might modify your view come the hearings in November and once there are the new annual performance reports. There has been a problem in the past of dealing with the appropriation bills, the PPSs and mostly draft annual reports and it has been very unsatisfactory. I think that it will be better in November but the point remains that, in summary, it should be regarded as an examination of the budget

measures, and remembering that it is the main appropriation bills.

If there is anything that the department could say in response to this exchange in its answers to these estimates committees that might actually avoid the necessity for some other processes in this review, and if you felt you were able to do so in that sort of time scale it might be more efficient.

Mr Barrett --Thank you. We will look at what we can say. I do not think that we can possibly avoid the process of coming back to you with another mock-up of what the thing might look like, passing it by those interested committees or senators, and asking what their view is, in the same way as we conducted the other discussions.

Mr Bartos --We would welcome any comments on features of different portfolio measures statements that were particularly approved. For example, I understand that, in Estimates Committee C, Senator Baume complimented the presentation by the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories. We will be looking to see what made that a more effective statement and anything along those lines we would welcome by way of commentary.

CHAIRMAN --Thank you very much. That completes our examination of the Finance portfolio and of this estimates committee.

Committee adjourned at 12.34 p.m.