enhanced-commonwealth-performance-framework-discussion-paper

New South Wales
• Strong focus on evaluation.
• Regional action plans to engage stakeholders from disparate parts of the state,
encompassing varying priorities.
• Annual reports and annual measures reports detailing yearly qualitative and
quantitative data and results.
Conclusions and key lessons
This research identified five key lessons Australia could consider.
1. Arranging government around strategic priorities
• The government should produce a list of strategic priorities. There should be a limited
number of key performance indicators that measure the performance of government
towards advancing these priorities.
• Programmes should be cross-portfolio in nature and detail high-level targets. Each
entity should detail the sub-programme activities they will undertake and how those
activities contribute to the programme.
• Each entity’s publically released performance information should focus on the extent to
which each sub-programme or activity contributed to the strategic priorities.
2. Publically available information
• Performance information, including commentary on and acknowledgement of factors
that may have limited performance, should be publically available. Information should
be made available in a way that enables users to track the contribution an activity’s
performance makes to achieve the government’s strategic priorities.
3. Independent assessments or use of experts
• Systematic assessment of programme performance. This would preferably be conducted
by independent experts, especially for evaluations.
• Utilising experts to create guidance materials and develop capacity within agencies.
4. Consequences of poor performance and/or engagement with the process
• Establish processes where poorly performing programmes are scrutinised by decisionmakers
to consider what modifications, including termination, should occur.
• Following the review of each programme, agencies establish work plans in consultation
with central agencies that detail the modifications that will occur.
• Consequences for entities that do not engage with the process should also exist.
5. Link to decision-making
• Performance information should be systematically provided to decision-makers.
• Information provided to government should consider how well the entity is managing or
administering the sub-programme or activity, in addition to how well it contributes to
the strategic priorities.
The Dutch system is a lower cost model with limited administrative oversight and reporting.
This is achieved through focusing only on a programme’s financial performance. This curtails
administrative outlay but restricts the benefit an active performance system may provide. The
Chilean system is a higher cost model with several processes to review government
performance, including assessment by independent experts. A key concern for Australia would
be creating a system that is unsustainable or falls into disuse because of the extra administrative
burden it creates.
Enhanced Commonwealth Performance Framework—Discussion Paper | 40