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 was to provide an independent assurance on the effectiveness of Defence's management of the acqusition of armoured infantry mobility vehicles (IMV) for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The audit sought to identify the initial capability requirements; analyse the tendering and evaluation process; and examine the management of the project by Defence. As such, this was not an audit of contractor performance, but of the formation and contract management of the aquisition project by Defence.
The objective of this audit was to follow up DVA's implementation of the recommendations in Audit Report No. 44, 2000-01, Information Technology in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The ANAO made two recommendations in the report (the second having five parts). The recommendations addressed the monitoring of IT changes; IT performance information; information systems model documentation; and the facilitation of the interpretation of performance information.
The objectives of the audit were to assess whether DOTARS had developed and implemented an appropriate framework and procedures to administer lessee obligations entered into as part of the 1997 and 1998 leasehold sales of 17 Federal airports. In particular, the audit sought to: - review DOTARS' monitoring of lessee compliance with the Airport Leases and supporting sale documentation; - examine the effectiveness of the framework and procedures developed by DOTARS to administer lessee development commitments; and assess the impact of changes in the aviation environment on the management and monitoring of lessee obligations.
In the current audit, the objectives were to provide assurance to the Parliament on the adequacy of the measures and plans instituted by Defence to ensure that the combat aircrew workforce meets military preparedness requirements in the future, and to identify possible areas for improvement.
The objective of the current audit was to assess Army's progress in implementing the ANAO recommendations and to examine and assess any developments in relation to AIRN since the 1999?2000 audit report and the 2001 JCPAA report. Army updated AIRN policy in 2001 and 2004, and the ANAO has assessed, where appropriate, the implementation of the 1999?2000 audit recommendations for these two policy reissues.
The audit examined ATSIS' implementation of recommendations from Audit Report No.39, 1998-1999 National Aboriginal Health Strategy - Delivery of Housing and Infrastructure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (the previous audit). In addition to assessing ATSIS' progress in implementing the recommendations of the previous audit, this follow-up audit examined ATSIS' performance reporting of the NAHS program, and concluded that the current level of aggregation of performance reporting makes it difficult to identify the particular contribution that the NAHS Program makes in improving services to Indigenous communities.
The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to Parliament concerning the adequacy of Defence preparedness management systems and to identify possible areas for improvement. The audit focused on the systems and processes that Defence uses to manage preparedness. We did not review the preparedness levels of specific capabilities, nor did we cover capital acquisition processes. The audit included coverage of: - preparedness systems architecture; - control and direction of preparedness; - coordination among contributors to preparedness; and - performance management and preparedness.
The objective of the audit was to examine DVA's implementation of the Repatriation health card system, which aims to ensure that veterans can obtain health care through community-based providers and facilities.
The audit reviewed the Defence Materiel Organisation's management of the $3.43 billion Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) project. The Wedgetail project is to provide the Australian Defence Force with an AEW&C capability based on four Boeing 737 AEW&C aircraft and associated supplies and logistic support. At the time of the audit the AEW&C systems were still in their early development phase, and by November 2003, Defence had spent $1.107 billion on the project.
The primary objective of the audit was to assess FaCS' management of the Internet portals for which it had responsibility as lead agency, www.youth.gov.au, www.community.gov.au, and www.families.gov.au. The ANAO also included in the audit a website directed towards youth. The source which provided many of the services expected of a portal. The audit considered governance structures for the portals; measurement of efficiency and effectiveness; and control factors, such as change management,security, and legal issues.
The audit examined agency approaches to the management of intellectual property under its control, and identified themes common to the management of all types of intellectual property. The audit objective was to:
(i) form an opinion on whether Commonwealth agencies have systems in place to efficiently, effectively and ethically manage their intellectual property assets; and
(ii) identify areas for better practice in intellectual property management by those agencies.
A Special Account is a mechanism used to record amounts in the Consolidated Revenue Fund that are set aside for specified purposes. A total of $3.40 billion was reported as held in Special Accounts as of 30 June 2003, with $10.33 billion reported as credited to Special Accounts in 2002-03 and $10.06 billion in reported payments (debits) from these Accounts. The audit examined the establishment, management and abolition of Special Accounts by Commonwealth agencies, as well as compliance with legal requirements
Directly after the collapse of Ansett in September 2001, most of its estimated 15 000 employees faced the possibility of retrenchment The Government immediately announced the introduction of the Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett group employees (SEESA) to address two risks facing the employees:
the risk-to a certain limit - of a shortfall in their payments of accrued employee entitlements from Ansett and,
the risk of delay in their being paid.
The objective of the audit was to determine how efficiently and effectively the two key elements of SEESA were managed: DEWR's management of the mechanism for making SEESA payments and DOTARS' management of the associated Air Passenger Ticket Levy.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether the property management function, including the management of leases, was being performed efficiently and was providing an effective level of support for the delivery of the organisation's services (outputs). The audit evaluated property management policies and practices across the following dimensions:
planning and control;
business processes and practices; and
information and performance management.
Within each of these areas, a series of desirable proceses and controls (described as the evaluation criteria) were developed to assist in the assessment of each organisation's performance.
Australian Communications Authority; Australian Film, Television and Radio School; Civil Aviation Safety Authority; Department of Employment and Workplace Relations; National Library of Australia; Department of Finance and Administration
The objective of the audit was to form an opinion on ATSIS' management of the Law and Justice Program, having particular regard to the relative needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The audit focused primarily on how effectively ATSIS manages and delivers the provision of legal services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The audit was desgined to compelement but not to reproduce previous audit and other evaluation activity relevant to the Program.
Annual Performance Reporting, No 11 2003-04 The audit reviewed the 2001-02 annual reports of the departments of : Communications, Technology and the Arts; Education, Science and Training; Employment and Workplace Relations; Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and the Australian Customs Service. The objectives of this audit were to determine whether agencies had: established a sound annual reporting performance information framework; developed arrangements to ensure performance information is accurate and coherent; and appropriately analysed performance information in their annual reports.
As part of its 2001 inquiry into the recruitment and retention of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee reviewed Defence's contract with Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd for trialling the outsourcing of recruiting services to the ADF. In its subsequent report, the Committee commented that the original contractual arrangements deserved further scrutiny by the ANAO. The objective of the audit was to examine Defence's management of the contractual arrangements for the provision of recruiting services to the ADF. In examining the management of the contract, the ANAO looked at the evaluations conducted at the end of each contractual phase, roles and responsibilities associated with ADF recruiting, and Defence's monitoring of contractual performance and management of risks associated with ADF recruiting.
This report relates to the fourth audit of Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) agencies' compliance with the Order of the Senate for Departmental and Agency Contracts, (the Senate Order) to list, on the Internet, contract details for the reporting period 4 February 2002 to 3 February 2003. The audit was conducted in accordance with the Senate Order request for the Auditor-General to undertake twice-yearly examinations of agency contracts listed on the Internet, and to report whether there had been any inappropriate use of confidentiality provisions. The objectives of the audit were to assess agency performance in relation to compiling the Internet listings required by the Senate Order and the appropriateness of the use of confidentiality provisions in Commonwealth contracts.
Australian Federal Police (AFP);; Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO);; Department of Defence (Defence);; Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR);; Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS);1 and; National Capital Authority (NCA)
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.