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 report on the effectiveness of Defence’s approach to the acceptance into service of Navy capability, and to identify where better practice may be used by CDG, DMO and Navy.
The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the management of maintenance of the Defence estate, taking particular account of planning and delivery aspects.
The audit examined: Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and supporting tools related to the planning and delivery of the maintenance of the estate; and services provided to Defence by private sector firms in relation to maintenance activities. The audit did not focus on contract management matters, nor on the systems used by Defence to maintain information related to estate maintenance.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence is effectively managing the EO Services Contract.
The audit focused mainly on Defence's contract management framework, including the arrangements to monitor the contractor’s performance in delivering services under the contract. The audit also examined the processes used by Defence to develop the current version of the contract and the extent to which the revised contract, as negotiated in 2006, provides an assurance of better value for money when compared to the original contract signed in 2001.
The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of explosive ordnance by the end users of this materiel in Air Force, Army and Navy (the Services). In particular, the focus was on the effectiveness of arrangements for the oversight and physical control of explosive ordnance once it is issued to Service units.
The audit reviewed Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and inventory management systems for explosive ordnance at the unit level in the ADF, from receipt and storage through to the use or return of explosive ordnance.The audit also examined the relationship between the management of explosive ordnance at the unit level and the Explosive Ordnance Services Contract and, where relevant, the regional Garrison Support Services (GSS) Contracts.
The audit examined the effectiveness of DEEWR's: administrative framework for the program; management of the application, assessment and funding processes; and monitoring of and reporting on the program's performance.
In order to form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO primarily conducted fieldwork and documentation reviews at DEEWR's central office. A stratified random sample (in order to provide for representation from states, territories and school sectors) of 74 applications from Rounds 1 and 2 was also selected for detailed examination. Through this sample, the ANAO sought to determine whether funding applications had been assessed in accordance with the established assessment criteria and that quality assurance mechanisms for the assessment process were effective.
The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of FaHCSIA's and IBA's management of the HOIL program. In particular, the audit examined the administrative design of the program, its implementation and progress in achieving the expected results.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Fixing Houses for Better Health program since 2005.
The audit reviewed the two elements of the program for which FaHCSIA is responsible: management of the service delivery arrangements and overall performance monitoring and reporting. Following the development of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which introduced new approaches to the delivery of Indigenous programs, FaHCSIA made changes to FHBH for the 2009–11 phase. The audit has focused on both the 2005–09 and the 2009–11 phases. This provided coverage of the program's normal operations as well enabling the audit to consider the modifications made to the program for the 2009–11 phase.
Against this background, the audit considered whether:
program management arrangements had been established that were suitable for the size, nature and objectives of the FHBH program;
service delivery arrangements were designed to support the achievement of the program's objectives and FaHCSIA's management of the program; and
FaHCSIA used robust systems to monitor achievement of the program objectives.
The ANAO also considered whether there was any experience from the department's management of FHBH that could be broadly applied to FaHCSIA's management of the National Partnership Agreement.
The audit assessed FaHCSIA's management of AACAP and how the department monitors the contribution the program is making to the improvement of primary and environmental health, and living conditions, in remote Indigenous communities.
The audit examined program delivery under the 2006–2009 MoU, as well as the planning for the 2010 project under the variation to the 2006–2009 MoU. As part of the audit the ANAO considered:
program strategy and implementation including the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders, community selection and scope of works (Chapter 2);
the financial management of the program and the changing role of the Contracted Program Manager (Chapter 3); and
performance measures, including FaHCSIA's performance reporting framework, and approach to monitoring and reporting performance against the stated program objectives (Chapter 4).
The audit focused on AACAP in so far as it relates to Indigenous community outcomes. It did not consider the program from the perspective of the Australian Defence Force capability building.
The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the GBM initiative, and the extent to which the initiative has contributed to improvements in community engagement and government coordination in the Northern Territory.
The audit focused on FaHCSIA's management of the GBM initiative under the NTER. The audit scope did not include additional functions assigned to some GBMs in the Northern Territory under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (the National Partnership Agreement), or to Australian Government staff with similar roles and functions supporting the implementation of the National Partnership Agreement in Queensland and Western Australia.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, Centrelink undertakes its role effectively, so as to support the timely implementation of the Tribunals' decisions about customers' entitlements. In assessing Centrelink's performance, the ANAO examined whether:
the information provided by Centrelink, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, effectively supported customers' and Tribunals' decision-making;
the relationships and administrative arrangements between Centrelink, DEEWR and FaHCSIA supported the effective management of the appeal process and the capture of issues that may have broader implications for legislation, policy and service delivery; and
Centrelink implemented SSAT and AAT decisions in an effective and timely manner.
The audit focused on the external review and appeal mechanisms and completes the cycle of audits on Centrelink's review and appeal system. The audit examined those appeals where an implementation action was required and did not consider SSAT and AAT appeals that were dismissed, withdrawn or were not within the Tribunals' jurisdiction.
The audit examined the effectiveness of DEEWR's administrative arrangements supporting the delivery of Indigenous childcare services through MACS and crèches, including the approaches DEEWR uses to monitor the achievement of the BBF sub-program objective.
In conducting the audit, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reviewed three key areas:
program administration—DEEWR's administrative systems and processes supporting the delivery of Indigenous childcare services through MACS and crèches and the broader BBF sub-program;
management of service provider funding agreements—DEEWR's systems and processes for managing MACS and crèche service providers' funding agreements; and
monitoring and reporting performance—the effectiveness of DEEWR's processes for monitoring the performance of service providers, and the achievement of the outputs and outcomes of the BBF sub-program.
The ANAO sought not to duplicate the work of DEEWR's Internal Audit function, and in doing so referred to the findings of the recent internal audit review of the CCSSP, where these were relevant and appropriate.
The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracts. This included assessing compliance with the Order and following up on the implementation of recommendations made in previous Senate Order audits.
The audit involved three components:
an examination of a stratified random sample of 150 contracts listed as containing confidentiality provisions from material and small agencies across the Australian Government to determine whether confidentiality provisions were used and reported appropriately;
an examination of all FMA Act agencies' calendar year 2009 contract listings, and ministers' letters of advice, to assess compliance with the requirements of the Order, and check reported instances of excluded contracts; and
a follow-up of the implementation of previous audit recommendations relating to the administration of the Senate Order in four agencies. The selected agencies were the: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF); and the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court). The selected agencies were audited in one of the ANAO's previous five audits of Senate Order compliance.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the selection, implementation, operation and monitoring of FRCs by AGD and FaHCSIA. The three main criteria for this audit assessed whether AGD and FaHCSIA had effectively:
planned and implemented the FRC initiative, including the FRC selection and funding processes;
undertaken administration activities to guide the operation and progress of the FRC initiative towards meeting its objectives; and
monitored, evaluated and reported on the performance of FRCs.
The purpose of the audit was to examine the environmental management mechanisms in place across some of the major Commonwealth land management and oversighting entities. In particular, the audit examined Commonwealth environmental management practices to identify current strengths and weaknesses, and provide a framework and direction for the adoption of better practice and continuous improvement. The audit has not been designed to judge past Commonwealth performance using current environmental standards and practices. Rather, the audit focused on encouraging the development of better practice by illustrating the implications and lessons learned from past and present practices.
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; Department of Defence; Department of Transport and Regional Development; Department of Administrative Services; Department of Environment, Sport and Territories
The objective of the audit was to assess the performance of the Department's management of the project in the light of accepted project management techniques, including risk management. An important part of the audit was to derive lessons to be learnt and recommendations that could be applied to the remainder of the project and to other large Defence projects.
The Department of Defence is responsible for administering the Defence export facilitation program which is aimed at promoting Australian defence-relevant exports. The Department administers the program in cooperation with AUSTRADE. Defence is also responsible for administering export controls on defence and related goods and dual-use goods. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for controls on chemical and biological weapons precursors. The Department of Primary Industries and Energy is responsible for controls on nuclear-specific technology and source/fissionable material. The Australian Customs Service implements barrier controls at ports and airports. In September 1993 the then Minister for Trade referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) an inquiry into the implications of Australian defence exports. The JSCFADT's Report on the Implications of Australian Defence Exports (September 1994) recommended, inter alia, that the Auditor-General conduct a performance audit of the operations of the guidelines concerning the controls on the export of defence and related goods, the export control process, and all export facilitation activities. The Auditor-General agreed to undertake an audit, which commenced in May 1995 as a preliminary study and was designated as a performance audit on 30 August 1995.
The audit examined how well performance information for programs administered by the (now) Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) facilitates good decision-making and provides a suitable framework for control and accountability for performance.
The primary objectives of the ANAO preliminary study were to gain an understanding of the concepts and associated processes used in the management of preparedness. This included the methodology for translating the Government's strategic guidance into military capability; the processes by which the Services translate preparedness directives into operational requirements; and how Headquarters ADF (HQADF) and the three Service Offices assure themselves that units can satisfy the requirements of preparedness directives.
Within the scope of this preliminary study the ANAO did not attempt to form a conclusion regarding the current ability of the ADF to satisfy the roles set by Government in strategic guidance; that is, its actual state of preparedness. It was important first to obtain a good understanding of the concepts and associated methodology used by Defence in managing preparedness.
The objectives of this audit were to assess planning, management, conduct and staffing of internal audit in the Department of Defence, with a view to providing assurance as to the standard of its work. Opportunities were taken to identify specific policies and practices that would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of MAB audit. Fieldwork for the ANAO audit was performed between May and August 1995.
whether the planning and implementation of the DSS Teleservice project has been adequate to ensure successful operations;
the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of Teleservice Centre management practices;
whether Teleservice Centres have been successful in delivering the anticipated improvements to client service; and
what opportunities might be available for improvement in the operation of the Centres.
An important aim of the audit was to ascertain with DSS what value could be added by identifying more administratively effective and efficient means of managing and operating their Teleservice Centre network. In addition, the ANAO considered that the experience gained and lessons learned from the introduction of Teleservice operations by DSS could improve the planning and implementation of major technology-based operational and client service initiatives in the future, both in DSS and the Australian Public Service (APS) generally.
In carrying out the audit, the ANAO undertook an extensive examination of the Teleservice environment including:
examining the experience and practices of private sector call centre operations;
reviewing the DSS Teleservice network, involving detailed discussions with departmental officers, examining files and data and observing Teleservice Centre operations; as well as
consulting a range of community groups and government agencies familiar with DSS's Teleservice Centre services.
Audit Report No.5 1993-94, Explosive Ordnance, Department of Defence, was tabled in the Parliament in September 1993. The report was structured in three parts. The first part covered explosive ordnance (EO) issues common to all three Services; the second part focused on the management of explosive ordnance by the Navy; and the third part was a follow-up of the 1987 audit report on Air Force explosive ordnance. The report made 39 recommendations. Defence agreed to implement most of them.
It was considered timely to undertake a follow-up audit into key issues of the recommendations contained in the audit report, given the elapsed time since the report was tabled and the issues associated with public safety.
The purpose of the audit was to ascertain the extent to which financial management arrangements helped the department to achieve its objectives and the way that these could be improved in the light of the department's management reforms generally.
Elements of the Financial Management Improvement Program, and the accrual reporting framework, were at an evolutionary stage in the department. The audit therefore focused on quite fundamental financial management issues, including:
the ability of financial management systems to provide information that was timely, accurate and relevant to the needs of management and other users; and
the extent of coordination and control of financial management across departmental programs and between National and State Offices.
This audit reviewed the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of case management in the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) to identify good practices and any areas in need of improvement.