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 objectives of this performance audit were to: - review the governance and accountability framework for the Scheme, and - assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Treasury's implementation and management of that framework.
The audit objective was to provide independent assurance to the Parliament on the effectiveness of Australian Public Service organisations in the use and management of the HRIS to satisfy mandatory reporting requirements, as well as provide meaningful information to management. The audit also considered the use of employee self service facilities offered by the HRIS, which has the capacity to provide staff with access to their personal information, reduce manual processing and streamline processing.
The objective of the performance audit was to report to Parliament our assessment as to how well the ATO manages and uses the AIIR data in taxation administration. The ANAO considered the following four key areas in addressing the audit objective. 1. Governance arrangements within the ATO, focussing on whole of ATO and whole-of-government aspects of the AIIR data, as distinct from solely business line applications. 2. Receipt of AIIR data and how well the ATO facilitates the collection of complete and valid AIIR data from investment bodies 3. Management of AIIR data through the construction by the ATO of valid entity records by using the AIIR data in conjunction with existing ATO client identification master files. 4: Use of the AIIR data on a systematic basis to inform active compliance activities.
The objectives of the audit were to: assess whether financial delegations associated with the expenditure of public monies were determined, applied and managed in accordance with applicable legislation, Government policy and applicable internal controls; and identify better practices and recommend improvements as necessary to current practices.
This report covers a number of the discretionary compensation and debt relief mechanisms that are available to Commonwealth agencies, where individuals or entities have been disadvantaged by legislation, or actions by agencies or staff, or some other negative circumstances. It deals mainly with two legislative mechanisms, namely, act of grace payments and waivers of debt, and one administrative mechanism, the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme. This report also briefly covers two other mechanisms, namely ex gratia payments and payments in special circumstances relating to Australian Public Service (APS) employment. The main objective of the audit was to assess whether the management of claims for compensation and debt relief in special circumstances was in accordance with relevant legislative requirements and Commonwealth guidelines, and whether the current administrative policies and procedures were adequate.
The objective of this audit was: to form an opinion on the adequacy of selected agencies' approaches to monitoring and evaluation of government programs and services delivered on the Internet; and to identify better practices and opportunities for improvement. In order to achieve this objective, the audit examined the websites and Internet-delivered services of five 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
The audit sought to assess how well the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) manages aggressive tax planning. We did this by exploring the nature of aggressive tax planning and the ATO's approach to its management. In the latter context, we looked at:
the ATO's previous experience with aggressive tax planning and action on previous significant external reviews, particularly dealing with mass marketed investment schemes;
strategy and operations, intelligence gathering and use; and the identification and management of promoters given their significant role in aggressive tax planning.
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) completed a performance audit of the ATO's use of AUSTRAC data in August 2000, titled The AustralianTaxation Office's Use of AUSTRAC Data, Audit Report No. 7 2000-2001. It found that the ATO had used AUSTRAC data to achieve a significant improvement in the collection of taxation revenue. The ANAO considered that the ATO could build on this success by using AUSTRAC data more effectively at both the strategic and operational levels. The audit made six recommendations. The ATO agreed with all recommendations. The objective of this follow-up performance audit was to assess the ATO's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No 7 2000-2001, The Australian Taxation Office's Use of AUSTRAC Data.
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.
The audit reviewed APRA's regulation of approved Trustees and superannuation funds registered under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The audit evaluated APRA's superannuation supervisory activities: and assessed the effectiveness of its supervision of superannuation entities. Particular attention was paid to the supervisory framework and the risk-based supervisory methodologies of APRA's frontline supervisory divisions.