Senate Estimates fizzer an opportunity lost - but wait, maybe there's more ...

When the Senate Estimates committee system was set up 50 years ago it was meant to be an opportunity for well-briefed Senators to fire difficult questions at well-prepared officials: cut and thrust with a dividend to the public interest as information came to light about the workings of government. Or something like that.

That's not how it is today, at least not in the corner of the system we keep an eye on, the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee's examinations of the Australian War Memorial. Here's some takeouts from that Committee's hearing of 6 June (mark 20.55), the transcript of which has just arrived. The cast is Nationals Senator Perin Davey (NSW), the duty minister (Assistant Minister Senator Jenny McAllister), and officials from the Memorial. The hearing lasted just 12 minutes.

As long-time observers of the Memorial, we expected questions on the recent scathing Audit Office report on the Memorial's management of its redevelopment project, the confusion about how the Memorial intends to properly recognise and commemorate the Australian Frontier Wars, the mysterious Budget provision of an additional $8 million to the Memorial's coffers, and the current Expressions of Interest process for filling vacancies on the Memorial Council.

What went down? Nothing, nix, nada, nil on the first two, a superficial poke at the third, and confused waffling on the fourth.

Senator Davey, however, set a couple of hares running with her questions. There might yet be some interesting Questions on Notice, and they will appear on the Committee website in the coming weeks with answers; we'll keep an eye open.

Are the Nats gunning for Memorial Council Chair Kim Beazley?

Here's a bit from the transcript (Proof Hansard p. 108):

Senator DAVEY: I have a few questions regarding the council. Is the term of Chairman Kim Beazley AC due to expire in November 2025?

Mr Anderson [Director of the Memorial]: I believe that's right. [It is.]

Senator DAVEY: Is there an evaluation process for chairs, or are there clear KPIs that are outlined when they take on the role that they report on annually during their tenure?

Mr Anderson: That would be a question for government. As you'd appreciate, I serve the chair and the council of the Australian War Memorial.

Senator DAVEY: Minister, are you aware of any KPIs or any reporting or evaluation that's done of chairs at the War Memorial?

Senator McAllister: Mr Anderson is correct that appointments of the council are a matter for government. I am unaware of the particulars around how that relationship is evaluated, but I can take that on notice. [Emphasis added.]

‍

This might be Senator Davey simply asking for information. On the other hand, her National colleagues Senator Canavan and Senator Cadell have form asking questions about the Memorial's approach to Frontier Wars, before and after Mr Beazley became Chair, and the Opposition Shadow Cabinet has opposed the portrayal of the Frontier Wars at the Memorial, as has Veterans' Affairs spokesperson, Barnaby Joyce. Defending Country, on the other hand, thinks Chair Beazley is on the right track. It will be interesting to see what follows Senator McAllister taking that question on notice.

Is that extra $8 million spent already?

It's going out the Memorial's door fairly quickly, according to Director Anderson and the relevant staff member. The $8 million was

to offset a cash shortfall between our appropriations and our current operating costs. So it is not for any new activities or functions ... [but to cover] staff pay rises, fragmentation, inflation and energy costs. They're the big drivers of the cash loss ...

Senator DAVEY: So would the War Memorial be seeking increased continual funding, rather than having one-off financial stability payments in the budget?

Ms Petrovski: That is the hope, yes. (Proof Hansard pp. 109-10)

Who's in charge of that Expressions of Interest process?

There was a confused exchange before Assistant Minister McAllister, having consulted her notes, confirmed that, Yes, it was indeed the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Minister who were running the process. Director Anderson made clear it was nothing to do with him. There was this, though:

Senator DAVEY: Have we had any indication of how many people may have submitted an application or an expression of interest? ... I was wondering whether any of those five [the Council members whose terms had expired but were extended till the end of June] had reapplied ... (Proof Hansard p. 109).

Neither the Director nor the Minister knew the answer to those questions. The Assistant Minister said there would be an announcement 'in due course'. (Minister Keogh's office says there will be an announcement during June.)

'Cut and paste' came unstuck?

Senator Davey had been reading the Budget papers and reckoned she had found a discrepancy (Proof Hansard p. 110):

Senator DAVEY: It struck me as interesting that, previously, the War Memorial in the budget statements has had a fairly consistent long-running definition, and there has been an addition of a few words this year. As a curious mind, I'm scratching my head and wondering why. In the past it has always read:

"The AWM is responsible for maintaining and developing the national memorial to Australians who have died in wars or warlike operations. It also develops, maintains and exhibits a national collection of historical material and conducts and fosters research into Australian military history."

It's almost the same, but there has been the following additions:

"… Memorial to Australians who have died on or as a result of active service or in wars or warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service".

I'm just curious about that change.

The Senator was quoting the Portfolio Overview in the Department of Veterans' Affairs Portfolio Budget Statements for 2023-24 (Page 4) and 2024-25 (Page 4, where the added words make the complete paragraph somewhat repetitive). Memorial Director Anderson's response was wide of the mark, however:

Mr Anderson: I think, Senator, you're talking about the difference between our strategic plan and our annual corporate plan. That's where there has been a slight change and, to be honest, that was a drafting error. It's just a human error where some extra words were left in and, in terms of document control, you don't need those extra words. [Emphasis added]

The Memorial's Strategic Plan 2023-2028 and Corporate Plan 2023-2027 (2023-24 Update) are here. Neither of Senator Davey's quotes appear in either document. The Director's regrets about the drafting process are appropriate but his response showed an unfamiliarity with relevant documents. There is an important difference between the Memorial's Strategic and Corporate Plans but that is a story for another day.

‍

Update 16 September 2024: Strategic Plan and two Corporate Plans further analysed: Part 1; Part 2.

‍

Photo credit: John Treloar 1922. Treloar was Director of the Memorial, 1920-52, when its budget was much smaller, its ambitions less grandiose and there were no such things as Estimates Committees (Wikipedia/donation by A. Treloar/in the Memorial's collection, public domain).