eport number:

34 of 2016-2017

Portfolio:

Agriculture and Water Resources

Entity:

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

Contact:

Please direct enquiries relating to reports through our contact page.

Summary and recommendations

Background

1. Australia is one of the few countries in the world to remain free from some of the world’s most damaging pests and diseases.1 This status means that Australia and its agriculture industries have a comparative advantage in export markets around the world. The increasing volumes of international travellers and trade from a growing number of countries have the potential to impact on Australia’s ability to protect its economy, environment and human health from exotic pests and diseases.

2. In June 2016, the Australian Government introduced a new biosecurity legislative framework—comprising the Biosecurity Act 2015 (the Act)2, four related Acts and delegated legislation (including regulations, declarations and determinations)—to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering Australian territory and causing harm to animal, plant and human health, the environment and the economy. The new framework, which replaced the arrangements established under the century-old Quarantine Act 1908, is being implemented in three stages over five years, with Stage 1 relating to the period leading up to commencement of the framework on 16 June 2016.

Audit objective and criteria

3. The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources’ implementation of the new biosecurity legislative framework.

4. To form a conclusion against this objective, the ANAO adopted the following high-level criteria:
•Was a robust governance and project management framework in place to support implementation of the new framework?
•Was the development of delegated legislation, administrative practice and business processes, effective and timely?
•Did the engagement with internal and external stakeholders support the transition to the new framework?

Conclusion

5. The arrangements established by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources effectively supported the implementation of the new biosecurity legislative framework in accordance with legislated timeframes.

6. A sound planning approach, governance structure and assurance review program was established by the department to support the implementation of the biosecurity legislative framework. Nevertheless, issues relating to the delayed establishment of the Board and weaknesses in performance reporting adversely impacted on oversight and monitoring arrangements. While the framework commenced operating on 16 June 2016 as required by legislation, more effective oversight and monitoring would have better positioned the department to deliver framework elements as originally planned. Further, there is scope for the department to review its approach to assessing the benefits to be derived from the new legislative framework.

7. The arrangements established by the department to support the operation of the new biosecurity legislative framework from 16 June 2016, including the development of policy and delegated legislation, creation of instructional material and the delivery of training for staff, implementation of IT system modifications and engagement with stakeholders, were, in the main, effective. There were, however, delays encountered in finalising a number of key activities, which ultimately reduced the time available to deliver important elements of the program, such as aspects of stakeholder engagement and IT system modifications. These delays also led to the reprioritisation of some implementation activities, including instructional material and IT changes, with delivery to occur in latter stages.

Supporting findings

Program planning and oversight

8. The approach adopted by the department to plan the implementation of the new framework was appropriate, with extensive planning documentation developed that outlined timeframes and roadmaps, roles and responsibilities, risk management approaches, assurance arrangements, and monitoring and reporting requirements. A robust governance structure was also designed, which provided a sound framework in which to coordinate the divisional level projects and integrate the delivery of enabling functions, such as stakeholder engagement and IT changes.

9. Notwithstanding the establishment of an appropriate planning approach and governance structure, issues relating to the delayed establishment of the Board and weaknesses in performance reporting adversely impacted on oversight and monitoring arrangements. Ultimately, weaknesses in oversight and monitoring arrangements put at risk the department’s ability to implement the new legislative framework in accordance with fixed timelines. More effective oversight and monitoring arrangements could have better mitigated this risk.

10. The series of assurance reviews that was conducted in the latter period of Stage 1 program implementation played a key role in highlighting to senior management the emerging risks to successful implementation of the new legislative framework. The department’s responsiveness to the reviews and the actions subsequently taken to prioritise implementation activities enabled the department to meet the set deadline of 16 June 2016 for the commencement of the new framework. Earlier commencement of these reviews—the first review was not undertaken until December 2015—would have provided more timely assurance and allowed more time for corrective actions to be taken.

11. The department adopted a sound approach to post implementation monitoring and evaluation for the implementation program, including an external post implementation review and a range of mechanisms designed to provide assurance in relation to Stage 1 implementation’s achievements and remaining activities to be prioritised for Stage 2. In addition, the department endorsed a Benefits Realisation Framework in December 2016, which is still to be finalised. In finalising the Framework, the department should ensure that the measures inform an assessment of those benefits that are directly attributable to the new legislative framework and of the expected cost savings (estimated by the department to be $6.9 million each year averaged over 10 years).

12. The department has appropriately captured the lessons learned from the program of work undertaken to implement the new biosecurity legislative framework. The successful implementation of latter stages of the biosecurity legislative framework will be heavily dependent on the department applying the lessons that it has learned from the initial stage of program implementation.

Program delivery

13. The department finalised the required delegated legislation in order to meet the timeframe for the commencement of the new framework. Delays encountered in the development process reduced the time available to undertake subsequent implementation activities, such as the development of instructional material and the delivery of training, and stakeholder consultation.

14. The arrangements established by the department to amend and develop instructional material and to deliver training to assist staff to fulfil their requirements under the new legislation were appropriate.

15. The department effectively engaged with stakeholders, including relevant government entities and key industry bodies. The majority of stakeholders indicated that they were, overall, satisfied with the level and quality of the department’s engagement in relation to the introduction of the new framework.

16. The relevant departmental IT systems affected by the new framework were modified to accommodate new requirements by 16 June 2016, but the timeframe available to undertake the modifications was condensed due to delays in finalising policy positions. As a consequence, the scope of some planned changes was reduced and there were deficiencies identified in the documentation of scope changes and testing.

Recommendations

Recommendation No. 1

Paragraph 2.29

The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources should:
a.finalise and implement the Benefits Realisation Framework as a priority; and
b.ensure that the Benefits Realisation Framework is effective in assessing the impact of the introduction of the new biosecurity legislative framework and the value of the reduction in costs and regulatory burden for external stakeholders.

Department of Agriculture and Water Resources’ response: Agreed.

Summary of entity response

17. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources’ summary response to the report is provided below, while its full response is at Appendix 1.

Implementation of the Biosecurity Legislative Framework was successful. The Biosecurity Act 2015 (the Biosecurity Act) took effect on 16 June 2016 with trade unimpeded, biosecurity risk mitigated and our clients and staff well-positioned to understand and comply with the new legislation.

The department agrees with the ANAO’s assessment that it effectively engaged with stakeholders. The department undertook extensive engagement with stakeholders, other government agencies, clients and staff in the lead up to 16 June 2016 to ensure readiness to operate under the new framework. The department also agrees with the ANAO’s finding that staff were appropriately supported and trained to operate under the new framework.

The department acknowledges there were challenges in the early stages of implementation which hindered the establishment of a formal programme structure prior to the initiation of projects. It also impacted the early establishment of robust programme level reporting to support effective monitoring and oversight. However, the Programme Assurance Activities completed during the course of the implementation were successful in identifying the risks. This allowed mitigation activities to be put in place that effectively managed the risks and supported the department’s successful implementation of the Biosecurity Legislative Framework. The department is continuing this robust programme and governance approach in the ongoing implementation of the biosecurity legislative framework as well as other departmental programmes of work.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/implementation-biosecurity-legislation#0-0-summaryandrecommendations