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 audit sought to assess the efficiency of Defence property management; provide assurance that probity and compliance requirements are being met; and make practical recommendations for enhancing property operations. It focused on Infrastructure Division's property management, with recognition that other areas manage certain property service contracts, such as those for electricity supply and cleaning.
The objective of the audit was to determine whether DIMIA's workforce planning systems are effectively supporting human resource management practices, which contribute to the efficient and effective achievement of project outcomes.
The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of Australian Customs Services (Customs) drug detection strategies for air and containerised sea cargo and small craft activity. Within the scope of the audit, the following areas were examined :
intelligence and law enforcement cooperation;
air and containerised sea cargo;
cargo examinations and technology;
small craft activities;
Customs funding arrangements (including funding for NIDS initiatives): and
The Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) uses information technology (IT) extensively in providing services to Australia's veteran and defence force communities. The audit reviewed DVA's management of its IT outsourcing contract. The audit considered DVA's planning to meet its strategic IT needs through the IT outsourcing contract, the provisions of the contract, contract administration, management of the impacts of the outsourced services on DVA's business and the outcomes of DVA's approach to the contract.
The audit sought to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the ADF's management of fuel and lubricants and to identify possible areas for improvement. The audit focused on major aspects of the fuel supply chain, in particular the strategic management of fuel (eg. the coordination of fuel requirements and stockholding policy). The audit also reviewed fuel procurement practices, storage and handling issues. The audit coverage addressed the fuel supply aspects of these matters rather than transport, distribution and equipment issues. Although directed principally towards operational fuels, the audit took into consideration issues associated with ADF's requirement for oils and lubricants.
To improve educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians, two main forms of assistance administered by the Commonwealth, namely the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Programme (IESIP) and the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance programmes (IEDA), are currently available. The objective of the audit was to assess whether the department had efficiently and effectively managed the development and implementation of the IESIP agreements for the 2001 to 2004 quadrennium.
The audit reviewed the planning and management of the Australian Defence Force deployments to East Timor, including the support of those deployments. The audit focused on planning for the deployments and the role of Australia as the lead nation in the International Force in East Timor (INTERFET); and financial, personnel, logistic and other systems used to deploy and sustain Australia's military presence in East Timor.
This was a follow-up of Audit Report No. 40 of 1997-98, Purchase of Hospital Services from State Governments. That audit examined the administration by the Department of Veterans' Affairs of the Purchase of Hospital Services from State Governments. The objective of this audit was to assess the extent to which the Department had implemented the nine recommendations of Report No. 40, taking account of any changed circumstances or administrative issues that the Department identified as affecting their implementation; and to offer continued assurance to the Parliament on the management of the purchase of hospital services.
The audit reviewed Defence's management of the Test and Evaluation (T&E) aspects of its capital equipment acquisition program. The audit sought to identify, from Defence T&E practice, any barriers that might limit the efficiency and effectiveness of its T&E activities.
Major capital equipment contributes importantly to the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to achieve the Defence mission, that is, the defence of Australia and its national interests. The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is the relatively new Defence organisation responsible for the acquisition and through-life support of Defence equipment and systems. DMO's stated purpose is to equip and sustain the ADF. In 2001-02, it will spend $2.9 billion on progressing some 270 major capital equipment acquisition projects. This preliminary study for the audit focused on DMO reporting on the status of major equipment acquisition projects.
The ANAO reviewed arrangements for the development of the department's fraud policy, fraud risk assessment and fraud control plan within the core functional areas of the department that are responsible for these activities. The audit also examined the operational procedures and guidelines that were in place to implement the department's fraud policy. The objective of the audit was to assess whether AFFA has implemented appropriate fraud control arrangements in line with the Fraud Control Policy of the Commonwealth and whether these arrangements operate effectively in practice.
The Government introduced the Defence Reform Program (DRP) in 1997 to enable Defence's resources to be focused more efficiently and effectively on its core functions. The objective of the audit was to assess Defence's management and implementation of DRP and the extent to which it achieved savings for reinvestment in the operational capabilities of the ADF.
This follow-up audit reviewed the operations of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) which is responsible for ensuring the sustainable use and efficient management of Commonwealth fisheries resources. The objective of this follow-up audit was to assess the extent to which AFMA addressed the issues that gave rise to the recommendations of ANAO Report No.32 1995-96, and the related recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee Report 1997, that were supported by the Government.
The follow-up audit focussed on the key issues identified in the recommendations and grouped these in the themes of:
strategic and performance management;
management of the advisory process;
implementation of fisheries management methods;
managing AFMA's environmental responsibilities as they relate to Commonwealth fisheries management;
compliance, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities; and
This performance audit was conducted to examine the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of Commonwealth fisheries management, with particular emphasis on AFMA's systems and procedures for planning and operations. In addition, the audit sought to determine whether AFMA is gathering and reporting to the Parliament appropriate accountability information on its performance.
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 objective of the audit was to examine the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of the scheme in light of rapidly increasing expenditure and a history of administrative difficulties and deficiencies.
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.