Defence Housing Australia

DHA’s operations are subject to scrutiny from a number of Parliamentary committees and external entities. This section outlines the external scrutiny mechanisms under which we operate and must report on in accordance with the PGPA Rule.

Parliamentary committees

Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

DHA was not the subject of any inquiries or reports by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (the Committee) in 2016–17. DHA representatives and the Minister for Defence appeared before the Committee on three occasions in 2016–17.

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (PWC)

In March 2014, in accordance with subsection 6A(3) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, DHA received exemption from scrutiny by the Public Works Committee (PWC) for works we undertake in providing housing and related services for ADF members and their families. We provide post implementation reports on projects previously endorsed by the PWC as they are completed.

We notify or refer any projects we undertake on behalf of Defence on Commonwealth land to the PWC as follows:

  • Medium works: Works with a proposed cost of over $2 million but less than $15 million
  • Major works: Works with a proposed cost of over $15 million.

In 2016–17, the PWC reviewed and endorsed a joint submission from DHA and Defence to upgrade the dwellings at Seaward Village, Swanbourne (WA). Refer to Part 3 for more information about the Seaward Village project.

External entities

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Auditor-General

DHA was one of a number of entities mentioned in ANAO Report No. 33 of 2016–17—Audits of the Financial Statements of Australian Government Entities for the Period Ended 30 June 2017. DHA was not the subject of any Auditor-General reports tabled in the Parliament in 2016–17. In accordance with the ANAO’s better practice guidelines, our Internal Audit Manager and the BAC also considered a number of published reports on other agency’s operations that were relevant to DHA, including:

Commonwealth Ombudsman

The Ombudsman’s office received 630 approaches across Defence related agencies in the reporting period. Of these, 51 approaches (8.1 per cent) related to DHA. As at 30 June 2017, the Ombudsman’s office had investigated eight matters and declined to investigate 34 atters. Reasons for non-investigation include:

  • DHA already investigating or having investigated the matter
  • another agency being responsible for the matter, or
  • the complainant failing to provide additional information and/or documentation as requested by the Ombudsman’s office.

Information Publication Scheme

DHA is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) and publishes information in relation to the scheme, including a disclosure log, on our website. In accordance with part 22 of the FOI Act we no longer need to publish a section 8 statement in our Annual Report.

Office of the Information Commissioner (OAIC)

DHA was not subject to any OAIC reviews in 2016–17, however, we voluntarily disclosed four minor data privacy breaches or investigations in the same period. As part of our disclosure, we advised what steps we had taken to contain and/or mitigate the breach. The OAIC did not require us to take any further action.

We review our privacy policy and procedures at least annually. In 2016–17, we also established a working group to better understand how information is collected, used and stored across the organisation. This information will be used to review and amend business processes and implement privacy impact assessments in 2017–18.

Other investigations

Forensic Review

In our Annual Report 2015–16 we reported that in May 2015, following completion of an independent scoping study, the government announced it would retain ownership of DHA and undertake a reform project to review, among other things, our accounting, information technology and business planning systems. The Department of Finance engaged KordaMentha (KM) to conduct a Forensic Review into our operations from July 2015.

We received a copy of KM’s final report on 8 April 2016. We immediately commenced a major business transformation program to implement the 34 recommendations by 30 June 2016. We fully or partially completed 33 recommendations as at 30 June 2016.25 The remaining item was suspended with agreement from all parties.

We also elected to pursue a scope of works beyond the 34 recommendations. The works included implementation of improved reporting and enhancements to planning and supporting information technology tools. We established a small team to complete this additional work by 30 June 2017 and provided status reports to our Shareholder Ministers via our quarterly performance reports.

As at 30 June 2017, we had completed all but one piece of this work as intended. Due to a range of reasons, including procurement related issues and the availability of key Defence and Finance departmental personnel who wanted to be part of the Steering Committee, we did not commence an independent review of our funding options and capital management strategies until mid-June 2017. This work is well underway and the outcome is expected to inform our Corporate Plan 2018–19.

25Recommendations were considered fully completed where business change had been implemented and there was an audit trail to substantiate it. Recommendations were considered partially completed where we relied on receipt of information from third parties, the work could not be meaningfully completed in the short time frame (eight weeks) or the work was part of a longer term restructuring or transformational program we chose to pursue beyond the Forensic Review recommendations.

Australian Federal Police

In our Annual Report 2015–16, we reported that a matter relating to DHA had been referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and that they were undertaking an investigation. The AFP continued to investigate the matter in 2016–17 and we complied with requests for information. As at 30 June 2017, we had not been informed of the status of the investigation.