Our staff add value to public sector effectiveness and the independent assurance of public sector administration and accountability, applying our professional and technical leadership to have a real impact on real issues.
The objective of this audit is to examine the effectiveness of the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC's) management of financial disclosures required under Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, including the extent to which the AEC is achieving accurate and complete financial disclosures.
The objective of this audit is to assess the effectiveness of the Department of the Environment and Energy’s referrals, assessments and approvals of controlled actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) arrangements to deter, detect and deal with aggressive tax planning.
Tax planning or tax-effective investing involves taxpayers operating within the taxation law to arrange their financial affairs to keep their tax to a minimum. However, some taxpayers plan their tax affairs outside of the taxation law. This behaviour is referred to as aggressive tax planning and the ATO aims to deter, detect and deal with these taxpayers. One element of the ATO’s activities to address aggressive tax planning is the Domestic Promoter Initiative, which targets Australia-based promoters of tax schemes.
This audit would assess the effectiveness of the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) in promoting the revised Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) and the extent to which selected entities are meeting the framework’s core requirements.
The Attorney-General has overall policy responsibility for Australian Government protective security arrangements, while accountable authorities are responsible for protective security arrangements within their own organisations. The PSPF assists entities to protect their people, information and assets at home and overseas by providing policy, guidance and better practice advice for governance, personnel, and physical and information security.
In 2015, the Independent Review of Whole-of-Government Internal Regulation identified the PSPF as an opportunity for reform and red-tape reduction. The review recommended a shift from the existing compliance framework underpinned by risk management principles, to a principles-based approach. The new PSPF policy aims to reduce the administrative burden of compliance and to support entities to better engage with risks relevant to their functions. Entities are required to review their policies, procedures and templates and consider whether any changes are necessary to implement core requirements.
This audit would assess the effectiveness of the establishment and administration of the Australian Federal Police’s (AFP’s) framework to ensure the lawful exercise of powers. Proposed audit criteria align with those of Auditor-General Report No. 39 of 2016–17, The Australian Border Force’s Use of Statutory Powers:
Is there an effective accountability and reporting framework for the AFP’s lawful exercise of powers?
Do AFP officers have adequate knowledge of their powers and how to use them?
In 2017, the AFP was investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman following a breach of legislation by AFP staff (relating to access to a journalist’s telecommunications data without a warrant). The investigation found contributing factors included insufficient awareness of warrant requirements and heavy reliance on manual checks and corporate knowledge (no strong system controls).
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s strategies to implement and monitor the Australian Government Public Data Policy Statement (the statement), as well as selected entities’ compliance with data-sharing requirements.
Published in December 2015, the statement acknowledges government data as a significant national resource with economic and strategic value. The statement commits government entities to make data ‘open by default’ and sets out basic principles for sharing and publishing data.
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) and the Department of Home Affairs’ compliance with model litigant obligations (MLOs), and the effectiveness of the assistance provided to Commonwealth entities by the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) in maintaining compliance with the MLOs.
Pursuant to the Legal Services Directions 2017, issued by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act 1903, Commonwealth entities have an obligation to act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation. Entities must reduce costs and delays in the handling of litigation and must not commence legal proceedings unless satisfied that litigation is the most suitable method of dispute resolution.
The Office of Legal Services Coordination within AGD is responsible for assisting Commonwealth entities in complying with the MLOs.
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) activities in addressing superannuation guarantee non-compliance, including the extent to which the ATO has implemented the Australian National Audit Office’s recommendations in Auditor-General Report No. 39 of 2014–15, Promoting Compliance with Superannuation Guarantee Obligations, and the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry report Superbad—Wage theft and non-compliance of the Superannuation Guarantee, tabled in May 2017.
The Senate Committee’s report concluded that inadequacies exist in the ATO’s approach to identifying and addressing superannuation guarantee noncompliance. In December 2017, the Australian Government announced that it would provide the ATO with $20.9 million over four years from 2017–18 to establish a Superannuation Guarantee Taskforce to address non-compliance and safeguard employees’ superannuation guarantee entitlements. The taskforce aims to improve the ATO’s capacity to proactively monitor and take action to improve employer compliance with superannuation guarantee obligations.
This audit would examine whether the Civil Aviation Safety Authority administers its legislative and regulatory responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the Australian Government’s Regulator Performance Framework and with other relevant standards and better practice principles.
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Australian Skills Quality Authority’s (ASQA’s) operations. ASQA is the national regulator for Australia’s vocational education and training (VET) sector. It provides regulatory oversight for the VET sector in all states and territories except Western Australia and Victoria, where its remit is limited to courses taught nationally from registered training organisations in these jurisdictions. In 2018–19, ASQA’s budget was $54 million.
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s (PM&C’s) and the Attorney-General’s Department’s implementation of the Australian National Audit Office’s recommendation to increase awareness of the Lobbying Code of Conduct and its requirements, including the extent to which they have provided advice to government about the sufficiency of current arrangements in supporting the achievement of the code’s objectives.
The audit would follow up on the Auditor-General Report No. 27 of 2017–18, Management of the Australian Government’s Register of Lobbyists. The register is intended to support the operation of the Lobbying Code of Conduct, which is aimed at promoting trust in the integrity of government processes and ensuring that contact between lobbyists and government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty. The report found that PM&C generally had insufficient mechanisms in place to provide assurance that the broad objectives of the code were being met. Responsibility for the administration of the Register of Lobbyists is transitioning to the Attorney-General’s Department in 2019.
This audit would assess the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture’s (the department’s) activities in response to non-compliance with biosecurity obligations.
In June 2016, the Australian Government introduced a new biosecurity legislative framework—including the Biosecurity Act 2015—to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering Australian territory and causing harm to animal, plant and human health, the environment and the economy. The Biosecurity Act 2015 provides the department with an expanded range of enforcement tools, including increased levels of compliance monitoring, formal investigation, administrative actions and criminal prosecution. The audit would follow Auditor-General Report No. 34 of 2016–17, Implementation of the Biosecurity Legislative Framework, and focus on the department’s implementation of its compliance enforcement activities, including its management of investigations, under the new legislative framework.
This audit would examine whether the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is effectively managing the lodgment of documents by taxpayers, businesses, accountants and superannuation entities.
The tax and superannuation systems rely on these parties regularly providing the ATO with information about their affairs to support payments to the ATO, keep records up to date, and encourage engagement and compliance. Ongoing lodgment, regardless of whether an entity owes money to the Australian Government, underpins long-term compliance.
The audit would examine lodgment rates, timeliness of lodgments, ATO strategies to encourage compliance, and the management of non-compliance.
This audit would examine the efficiency with which the Anti-Dumping Commission responds to dumping and subsidy claims.
The Anti-Dumping Commission investigates dumping and subsidy claims. Dumping is the activity of exporting goods at a cheaper price than what they would sell for in their country of origin. Governments may also provide their exporters with subsidies. The Australian Government’s anti-dumping and countervailing (anti-subsidy) system is intended to help Australian industry to compete against these imports.
Following an investigation of a dumping or subsidy claim, import duties can be imposed on the dumped or subsidised goods to remedy the injury caused. The Australian Border Force is charged with enforcing and collecting duties. The Anti-Dumping Commission reported that it introduced a new investigations model in 2017–18, finalising 123 matters that year, up from 105 in 2016–17.
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture’s (the department’s) regulation of the treatment and handling of export livestock.
In 2017–18, Australia exported 2.7 million head of livestock generating revenue of $1.5 billion. The department, as the regulator of live animal exports, requires exporters to ensure the health and welfare of animals in their care at every stage of the export chain. Reviews commissioned by the Australian Government in 2018 found a range of shortcomings in the department’s implementation of the regulatory framework. The reviews recommended strengthening compliance monitoring arrangements, improving regulatory oversight structures, investing in departmental skills, capability and systems, and enhancing engagement with stakeholders.
An audit of the department’s regulation of live animal exports would examine the department’s implementation of recommendations from the Review of the Regulatory Capability and Culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the Regulation of Live Animal Exports and the Independent Review of Conditions for the Export of Sheep to the Middle East During the Northern Hemisphere Summer.
This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s (the authority’s) management of Commonwealth fisheries.
The Australian Fishing Zone is the world’s third largest and extends up to 200 nautical miles offshore. From 2018–19 to 2022–23, the value of Australia’s fisheries and aquaculture production is projected to rise by four per cent in real terms to reach $3.1 billion. Australia’s commercial fishing and aquaculture industry employs around 11,600 people.
The authority is the Australian Government agency responsible for the efficient and sustainable management of Commonwealth fish resources on behalf of the Australian community. An audit would follow up Auditor-General Report No. 20 of 2012–13, Administration of the Domestic Fishing Compliance Program, and would include the authority’s assessment of compliance risk and implementation of its performance measurement framework.
The objective of this audit was to examine the extent to which Australian Government entities have implemented the Digital Continuity 2020 policy, and how effectively the National Archives of Australia is monitoring, assisting, and encouraging entities to meet the specified targets of the policy.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether selected regulatory entities effectively apply the cost recovery principles of the Australian Government’s cost recovery framework. The selected regulatory entities were the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, and the Department of Health (Therapeutic Goods Administration).
The objective of this audit was to assess the extent to which the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Agriculture) has addressed the recommendations from ANAO Audit Report No. 46 of 2011–12, Administration of the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS).
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) and Treasury’s management of compliance with foreign investment obligations for residential real estate.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s (APVMA’s) implementation of reforms to agvet regulation and the extent to which the authority has achieved operational efficiencies and reduced the cost burden on regulated entities.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s (DIBP) management of compliance with visa conditions. To form a conclusion against this objective, the ANAO assessed whether DIBP:
effectively manages risk and intelligence related to visa holders’ non-compliance with their visa conditions;
promotes voluntary compliance through targeted campaigns and services that are appropriate and accessible to the community;
conducts onshore compliance activities that are effective and appropriately targeted; and
has effective administrative arrangements to support visa holders’ compliance with their visa conditions.
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of the Environment’s and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service’s management of compliance with the wildlife trade regulations under Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.