David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 November 2011:

With reference to the answers to Questions on Notice No's.794 – 831 (Senate Hansard, 22, 23, 24 August 2011 and 12 October 2011), can a clear and concise answer to this question be provided as a matter of urgency, given that the answer already provided does not enable effective scrutiny of the Department.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

The 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) report was used to inform Defence of areas where reform could have a substantial impact. As previously advised, the DBA recommends the “performance gaps” identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined. The gap to average performance percentages described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the DBA draw attention to areas where reform can result in significant cost reductions. However, they are not and were never intended to be the performance targets from which Defence would use as part of a deep reform program.

Following the DBA, Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the report. This led to the development of cost reduction targets identified in each of the streams of the Strategic Reform Program. These cost reduction targets are the targets agreed and approved by Government. Achievement against the cost reduction targets are published in respective Defence Annual Reports.

As Defence does not use the gap to average performance percentages described in the DBA as its performance target, measuring performance against these “performance gaps” is inappropriate.