Key Efficiency

Indicators

State Revenue

Service 1

Revenue assessment and collection, and grants and subsidies administration


This service involves the assessment and collection of a range of statutory based revenue, including duties, land tax and payroll tax, and those that are collected on behalf of other agencies (e.g. Perth Parking Licence fees on behalf of Department of Transport) or other jurisdictions (e.g. collection of a range of taxes for the Commonwealth in the Indian Ocean Territories). State Revenue is also involved in the assessment and payment of a range of grants and subsidies under both statutory and administrative schemes. The major payments relate to the First Home Owner Grant Scheme, as well as concessions on water rates, local government rates and the Emergency Services Levy for pensioners and seniors.

The indicators represent the costs per unit of taxation raised and grant/ subsidy processed in a given year. Taken into account with the notes explaining any variances it provides a measure of efficiency.

Average cost per tax
or duty determination ($)(a)
25.35
Actual
2016-17
27.13
Actual
2017-18
27.36
Target
2018-19
25.91(1)
Actual
2018-19

(a) This indicator is used to measure the cost to produce a tax or duty determination across all major tax lines administered by State Revenue. It is calculated by dividing the ‘total State Revenue costs plus departmental overhead costs’ by the ‘total number of tax or duty determinations’.

This is a new indicator in 2018‑19 and results for prior years have been back‑cast for comparative purposes.

(1) The actual 2018‑19 cost per assessment determination was 5% lower than budget due to a reduction in State Revenue costs and corporate oncosts.

Average cost per grant or subsidy
determination ($)(b)
10.51
Actual
2016-17
10.84
Actual
2017-18
11.16
Target
2018-19
10.76(2)
Actual
2018-19

(b) This indicator is used to measure the cost to produce a single determination across all grant and subsidy lines administered by State Revenue. It is calculated by dividing the ‘total State Revenue grant and subsidy costs plus departmental overhead costs’ by the ‘total number of grant and subsidy determinations’.

This is a new indicator in 2018‑19 and results for prior years have been back‑cast for comparative purposes.

(2) The 2018‑19 actual average cost per grant determination was 4% below budgeted due to lower corporate costs as well as a higher than budgeted number of grants and subsidies.

Government Procurement

Service 2

Development and management of Common Use Contract Arrangements, State fleet leasing and disposal and providing facilitation service for agency specific contracts


The Department provides a whole‑of‑government approach to procurement that efficiently meets the business needs of government agencies, manages risk and delivers value for money.

In facilitating the development and management of client agency contracts, State fleet and CUAs, the Department needs to effectively manage the cost of delivering this service which ensures agencies achieve value‑for‑money outcomes.

The Department is responsible for managing the State’s vehicle fleet to ensure an efficient and effective use of government vehicles with particular focus on the delivery of a sustainable vehicle fleet. The indicator demonstrates the efficiency of managing the financing and administration of the Government’s light vehicle fleet.

Cost of facilitating the development and management of agency specific contracts
as a percentage of the contract award value (%)(a)
2.0
Actual
2016-17
1.6
Actual
2017-18
1.4
Target
2018-19
2.0(1)
Actual
2018-19

(a) This indicator is used to measure how efficient the Department has been in facilitating the development and management of agency specific contracts.

(1) The increase compared to target was due to a lower than forecast contract award value as a result of a number of large value contracts being awarded in 2017‑18, earlier than expected.

Average administrative cost per vehicle for financing and managing the State Fleet service ($)(b)
104
Actual
2016-17
112
Actual
2017-18
124
Target
2018-19
110(2)
Actual
2018-19

(b) This indicator measures State Fleet’s administrative cost efficiency in financing and managing the leasing of government vehicles.

(2) The actual average administrative cost per vehicle is lower than budget as a result of operational efficiencies driving a reduction in costs.

Cost of developing and managing whole‑of‑government Common Use Contract Arrangements as a percentage of the total annual value of purchases through the arrangements (%)(c)
1.5
Actual
2016-17
1.6
Actual
2017-18
1.7
Target
2018-19
1.6(3)
Actual
2018-19

(c) This indicator is used to measure how efficient the Department has been in developing and managing whole‑of‑government common use contract arrangements.

(3) The 2018‑19 actual result is slightly better than budget due to lower than estimated costs.

Corporate Services:

Outcome 3:
Efficient and effective corporate services to client agencies

Service 3:
Corporate services to client agencies


Effectiveness and efficiency indicators are not reported for this outcome as it relates to the corporate services provided directly by the Department to support the outcomes and activities of the Department of Treasury and the Government Employees Superannuation Board (GESB). An exemption from the requirements of Treasurer’s Instruction 904 (2)(iv) Key Performance Indicators, has been provided by the Under Treasurer.

Building Management and Works

Service 4

Leads the planning, delivery, management and maintenance of government buildings, projects and office accommodation


This service leads the planning, delivery and management of a property portfolio that supports the delivery of government services to the community including the delivery of new building works, maintenance programs for existing buildings and office accommodation.

Percentage of new buildings projects within the Building Management and Works Program, valued over $5 million, delivered by the approved handover date(%)(a)
100
Actual
2016-17
100
Actual
2017-18
100
Target
2018-19
76(1)
Actual
2018-19

(a) Prior to 2018‑19, this indicator measured the percentage of projects with current approved budgets of $5 million or more that had been handed over to the client agency within three months of the approved date for handover in that financial year. The three month allowance has been removed for 2018‑19.

(1) Thirteen of the 17 new building projects within the Building Management and Works program were delivered by the approved handover date. Of the remaining four projects, three were delivered within one month of the approved handover date whilst the Onslow Health Services Redevelopment experienced construction delays leading to the project being delivered some four months late.

Percentage of high priority breakdown repairs completed within agreed timeframes (%)(b)
75
Actual
2016-17
75
Actual
2017-18
80
Target
2018-19
75(2)
Actual
2018-19

(a) This indicator measures the percentage of high priority breakdown repairs attended to within the agreed timeframe. High priority breakdowns are more time‑critical and typically include breakdowns or failures that have an immediate adverse effect on the security, safety and/or health of occupants. The 10% buffer which had been included in prior years has been removed for 2018‑19.

(2) Achievement of the target was adversely impacted by the complexity of the works, availability of spare parts and access to regional sites.

This is a new indicator in 2018‑19 and results for prior years have been back‑cast for comparative purposes.

Project, contract and administration costs to deliver whole‑of‑government non‑residential building, maintenance and accommodation services as a percentage of services delivered (%)(c)
7.07
Actual
2016-17
7.38
Actual
2017-18
8.28
Target
2018-19
7.08(3)
Actual
2018-19

(c) This indicator measures the costs of delivering Building Management and Works services as a percentage of the Works Program Turnover (WPT) costs.

This is a new indicator in 2018‑19 and results for prior years have been back‑cast for comparative purposes.

(3) The improvement in the 2018‑19 actuals is largely due to reductions in both the total cost of services and turnover costs as compared to budget.

Strategic Projects

Service 5

Leads the planning and delivery of major government buildings


This service encompasses strategic leadership and facilitation in the planning, project management and procurement of major new non‑residential buildings. It contributes to the desired outcome of value for money from the management of the Government’s non-residential buildings and public works.

Percentage of major projects in Strategic Projects’ program delivered (or forecast to be delivered) within approved timeframes (%)(a)
36
Actual
2016-17
50
Actual
2017-18
100
Target
2018-19
60(1)
Actual
2018-19

(a) This indicator measures the number of projects that are forecast to be completed or have actually been completed as a percentage of the number of infrastructure projects overseen by Strategic Projects and in progress (at the tender stage or beyond) during the financial year. Achievement of projects within approved timeframes is an important requirement for client agencies and is a key contributor to value‑for‑money outcomes.

(1) Six of the 10 major projects overseen by Strategic Projects that were active during 2018‑19 have been, or are expected to be, completed within approved timeframes.

The remaining four projects were subject to the following delays:

  • Perth Children’s Hospital was significantly delayed by construction and commissioning issues before its commencement of clinical services in May 2018;
  • Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison and Busselton Health Campus experienced construction and commissioning delays, however both are now fully operational; and
  • The procurement process for Karratha Health Campus was delayed to ensure the transition to operations occurred after the 2017‑18 wet season.
Cost of project management as a percentage of total project costs(%)(b)
0.5
Actual
2016-17
0.9
Actual
2017-18
1.5
Target
2018-19
1.76(2)
Actual
2018-19

(b) This indicator shows Strategic Projects ‘operational’ costs as a percentage of the total costs associated with planning and delivering the major projects program.

(2) The increase in cost is the result of a reduction in the overall value of the major project portfolio due to completion of major projects such as the Optus Stadium, Perth Children’s Hospital and Karratha Health Campus.

View Key Effectiveness Indicators