Third Year Review
Regular readers of The Leaflet will recall that one of the big events in the life of our CRC, the ‘Third Year Review' (TYR), was scheduled for mid-December 2008. Preparations involved participants, program staff and leaders, management and the board. A board subcommittee, comprising John Irwin, Barry Windle and myself, with the CEO, participated in four teleconferences with the independent review panel prior to the formal meetings held at the University of Canberra on 16 and 17 December.
A TYR is carried out to provide a report to a CRC Board, which considers the report and prepares a response. The final report and response are then provided to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR). It follows that the composition of the independent panel is vital in providing a board with feedback on all aspects of a CRC's work, no easy task in a CRC as large as the CRCNPB.
Our CRC was fortunate to have a panel which was both completely independent and genuinely multi-skilled. Dr Kevin Sheridan (Chair) had a distinguished career in the public service, culminating in 14 years as Director-General of New South Wales Agriculture and Fisheries. In addition, Kevin has served on the Boards of a number of CRCs as well as on numerous other boards and committees. His understanding of, for example, the pressures faced by public sector bodies involved in CRCs was particularly valuable to the review.
David Crawford, Chairman of the Westralia Airports Corporation, also served as Chairman of the Export Grains Centre in WA. David held senior executive appointments with Wesfarmers Ltd and was a member of the foundation board of the CRC for Innovative Grain Products. With this background, matters of corporate governance and the operations of the CRC were put under close scrutiny.
As Senior Scientist and Science Leader for Better Border Biosecurity, New Zealand, Dr Craig Phillips provided ‘scientific horsepower' for the review. Craig's interests lie in border biosecurity; invertebrate population genetics; integrated pest management; biological control, parasitoid host specificity and environmental impact assessments for new organisms. A formidable list, indeed.
Craig's expertise was complemented by that of Professor Elizabeth Deane, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) at the Australian National University, who brought a critical eye to bear on the CRC's education activities. This scrutiny was informed by Elizabeth's background as a scientist with research interests in immune research and marsupial immunology, and social perspectives of interactions with wildlife.
With such a line-up, readers will imagine that there was a degree of trepidation among the interviewees. In reality, the review was conducted as an amicable enquiry, critical but always constructive, and all who participated found it a beneficial experience.
So what happened? The CRC was able to have a relaxed Christmas holiday in the knowledge that preliminary feedback from the panel had been very positive. A draft report was considered by the Board at its meeting on Friday 13 February (an auspicious day!) and the final report was received on 17 February. In his covering letter Kevin Sheridan wrote:
"On behalf of the Third Year Review Panel for the CRC for National Plant Biosecurity I have pleasure in presenting the Final Report of the Panel. The Panel greatly appreciated the full cooperation of the Board of the CRCNPB, the staff and all participants. The Panel was impressed with the governance, management and operations of the CRC and commends the CRC for effectively pulling together a disparate group of stakeholders.
The recommendations in the Report are for improvements and refinements rather than to overcome any identified fundamental flaws in the management or operations of the CRC. The CRC program as a whole looks set to deliver benefits across a wide cross-section of stakeholders in Australia and is contributing significantly to biosecurity capability development."
The sixteen recommendations from the panel were considered by the Board on 13 February, following a workshop session which had identified significant factors in the operating environment, in particular, those which will impinge on actions resulting from the review. These include global challenges, for example, the economic downturn and climate change, and more local phenomena, such as the Beale Report on Quarantine and Biosecurity and the pressure on human resources faced by many of the CRCNPB's participants.
The next step will be a discussion of the recommendations and the Board's draft response, involving the Participants Committee and the Board's TYR Subcommittee. The final response will be presented to DIISR, together with the review report, by the end of March.
In forthcoming Leaflets I expect to be able to comment on the impact of the review, especially, insomuch as future directions for the CRC are concerned.
Professor John Lovett
Chairman
Back to The Leaflet.
