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 the award of funding under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages program was informed by appropriate departmental advice and that processes complied with the grants administration framework.
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's (CSIRO's) Gift to the Science and Industry Endowment Fund.
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness and equity of the award of funding under the Clean Technology Program in the context of the program objectives and the Commonwealth’s grants administration framework.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, including the establishment, implementation and ongoing management of the program.
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education’s (DIISRTE’s) administration of the Education Investment Fund grants program.
(DIISRTE was the department that had responsibility for the administration of the EIF grants program during the course of the audit. The recommendations and suggestions for improvement are, however, directed to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education because this department now has responsibility for the administration of the program).
The objective of the audit was to assess how well agencies had implemented the CPGs and relevant FMA legislation when undertaking Direct Source procurement.
The audit examined whether selected agencies had developed a sound procurement framework; appropriately classified procurement methods when meeting external reporting requirements; implemented the CPGs and relevant legislation when Direct Sourcing; and established effective procurement monitoring and review arrangements.
The ANAO selected four FMA Act agencies to provide a cross-section of the 104 agencies that reported procurement activity in AusTender in 2008–09. The agencies selected for audit were:
the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA);
the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Innovation);
the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA); and
the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).
The ANAO examined a stratified random sample of 645 procurements valued at $10 000 and over, across the four agencies. More detailed testing was undertaken for the 285 Direct Source procurements in the sample.
The objective of the audit was to assess how effectively Geoscience Australia provides geoscientific and geospatial information and services to assist the Australian Government and key stakeholders. Particular emphasis was given to:
the collection and management of geoscientific and geospatial data and information, including accessibility;
the provision of products and services; and
The ANAO examined a number of datasets and product and service projects to assess Geoscience Australia's performance in providing geoscientific and geospatial information and services.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Scheme is being administered effectively by the department. The ANAO focussed on Program Year 1 of the Scheme, 2005–06, and examined DIISR's arrangements for:
assessing the eligibility of entities to receive grants;
assessing entities' claims for eligible expenditure;
adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme when calculating and paying claims, and managing any debts that arise;
and evaluating and reporting on whether the statutory objective of the Scheme is being met.
The audit did not examine the other components of the 2005–2015 industry assistance package; nor did it examine any of the programs delivered under the previous assistance package (2000–2005).
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 current audit has focussed on Stage 2 of the Scheme. Its objective was to assess whether ACIS is being administered effectively by DIISR and, as relevant, by Customs. In particular, the audit examined the department's arrangements for:
assessing the eligibility of participants to receive duty credits;
calculating duty credits accurately and adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme;
checking the integrity of participants' claims, which are self-assessed;
accounting for the duty credits transferred to and used at Customs; and
measuring and reporting on the performance of ACIS.
The audit also followed up on whether the ANAO's previous recommendations have been addressed.
The objective of the audit was to assess the application of the outcomes and outputs framework in Australian Government agencies. The audit included a review of:
the outcomes and outputs of agencies and the integration of the outcomes and outputs framework into agencies' operations;
the extent to which agencies' performance indicators incorporated better practice characteristics to enable agencies to meet their performance reporting obligations;
agencies' processes for capturing, monitoring and reporting financial and performance information and the extent to which outcomes and outputs information was used in agency decision-making; and
the extent that agencies met their external reporting and accountability obligations.
The audit consisted of a survey of 44 agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) undertaken in October 2005 and detailed audit testing in three of those agencies. The purpose of the survey was to provide cross-agency data in relation to agencies' implementation of the framework during the period 2002–03 to 2005–06. The ANAO received responses from all 44 agencies, although not all agencies responded to all questions. The ANAO did not audit the information provided by survey participants and the reported results are based on agencies' responses to the survey.
The agencies at which detailed audit testing was undertaken were:
Department of Education Science and Training;
the then Department of the Environment and Heritage; and