Conclusion

Departments have not consistently developed or reported on objective indicators that show their achievement against their stated objectives. This means departments are not meeting the Framework's mandatory requirements. More importantly, it weakens departments' accountability and transparency by preventing the government, Parliament and the community from accessing vital information about their performance. Without information on departments' outcome achievement, the government lacks a sound basis for future investment and policy decisions.

Departments measure and report on their service performance to show what they have delivered with public money. This information helps the government to allocate funding, and Parliament and the community to understand if departments are delivering efficient and effective services. 

DTF sets performance reporting requirements for departments. Each year, departments provide details of their objectives and associated performance measures, targets and results in the state's Budget papers. Departments also publicly report on their performance in their annual reports. 

FIGURE I1: Oversight committees during implementation (2015–18)

As the government classified the Reform Program as HVHR, DTF (in consultation with DPC) arranged six Gateway reviews of SV. Figure H1 provides more information about these reviews. 

FIGURE H1: Gateway reviews of SV

Figure G1 shows SV’s reported avoided costs and re-use benefits by transaction type for 2018–19 and 2019–20.

FIGURE F1: Summary of SV's performance against its KPIs

SV did not deliver all original transactions outlined in the Reform Program business case. Figure E1 outlines the changes to the transactions over time and whether these have been delivered. 

FIGURE E1: SV's transactional delivery

FIGURE D1: Horizon 1 expected outcomes