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 the audit was to assess whether selected regulatory agencies have cost recovery procedures and practices which comply with the Government's guidelines. To address this objective, the audit assessed the management of cost recovery against the following criteria:
regulatory agencies have clear and consistent cost recovery procedures to identify their activities and costs, and set fees and levies;
regulatory agencies have effectively implemented their cost recovery procedures;
regulatory agencies regularly monitor and review their cost recovery activities; and
regulatory agencies regularly report on their cost recovery.
The audit objective was to assess how four key departments: Education, Science and Training (DEST); Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR); Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA); and Health and Ageing (DoHA) are implementing the Government's policy objective for Indigenous service delivery.
The objective of this audit was to assess the progress made by DoHA and Medicare Australia (recommendation 3) in addressing the four recommendations from ANAO Audit Report No.50, 2000–01 designed to improve the administration and performance of NCSP.
The objective of the audit was to assess the management practices undertaken by APS agencies to achieve value for money and transparency in dealing with contracts for non-APS workers. The focus of the audit was on circumstances where agencies had a significant reliance on a non-APS workforce to assist in achieving their core functions. Regular reporting by agencies of expenditure on non-APS workers was outside the scope of this audit.
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DIAC's administration of the health requirement of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). To achieve this objective, the ANAO examined whether DIAC was setting and implementing the health requirement in accordance with the Act, the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), and DIAC's own guidelines.
The objective of this audit was to determine whether Health adequately assessed the State and Territory Governments' compliance with their obligations under the terms of the AHCAs. In conducting the audit, ANAO addressed the following criteria:
if Health assessed whether the States and Territories were adhering to the AHCAs clause 6 principles that all eligible persons had equitable access to free public health and emergency services on the basis of clinical need within an appropriate period;
if Health assessed whether the States and Territories were increasing their own source funding at the rate specified in the AHCAs; and
if Health assessed whether the States and Territories were meeting the performance reporting requirements set out in the AHCAs.
The audit objective was to form an opinion on the adequacy of a select group of Australian Government agencies' management of Internet security, including following-up on agencies' implementation of recommendations from the ANAO's 2001 audit. The agencies audited were Australian Customs Service (ACS), Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) and Medicare Australia. Factors considered in selecting agencies were agency size based on funding levels, whether the agency was included in ANAO's 2001 audit (ACS, ARPANSA, and DEWR), whether the agency's ICT was managed in-house or outsourced, and the nature of the agency's website (that is, general or restricted access).
The objective of the audit was to examine how effectively Health manages the risk of PBS drugs not being used according to PBS subsidy conditions. The audit examined two areas: during listing, how Health identified and implemented measures to decrease the risks of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions; and following listing, how Health confirmed that usage and expenditure on PBS drugs was consistent with estimates. The report examines selected approaches used by Health, which have evolved in recent years, to manage the risk of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions. The report also acknowledges and describes the role of the expert committees. The scope of the audit was limited to PBS drugs for which Health pays a subsidy. The audit did not examine Health's role in educating consumers, prescribers, and other health professionals, or the implications of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement for the PBS. Additionally, the ANAO did not form an opinion on the success of Medicare Australia's compliance role. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO interviewed Health personnel, committee members and stakeholders, examined relevant documents and files, analysed drug usage and expenditure data, and attended a number of committee meetings. To assist the audit process, the ANAO selected a sample of eight drugs. The drugs were selected due to their high cost to the PBS and/or high usage, or because the drug has had a particularly interesting PBS history. The sample is not representative of all drugs on the PBS. In 2004–05, 15.3 million prescriptions were written for these eight drugs, with the Government subsidy totalling $1.05 billion.