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 assess whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) designed and is implementing its property investment strategy in a way that is delivering the intended benefits, and how any lessons learned are being reflected in a new strategy that is being developed.
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 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appeals where an implementation action was required and did not consider SSAT and AAT appeals that were dismissed, withdrawn or were not within the Tribunals' jurisdiction.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 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 examine the effectiveness of Centrelink's approach to investigating and responding to external fraud. The ANAO's assessment was based on four key criteria. In particular, the ANAO assessed whether Centrelink:
had established a management framework, business systems and guidelines, that support the investigation, prosecution and reporting of fraud;
had implemented appropriate case selection strategies and controls to ensure resources are targeted to the cases of highest priority;
complied with relevant external and internal requirements when investigating fraud and referring cases for consideration of prosecution; and
had implemented an effective training program that supports high quality investigations and prosecution referrals.
The audit objective was to assess whether agreements between Australian Government (Commonwealth) agencies reflect sound administrative practices. To meet this objective, the audit reviewed current government policy and a range of better practice guidelines, conducted interviews with agencies and examined cross-agency agreements, to formulate suitable audit criteria and subsequently develop better practice principles.
The scope of the audit covered Centrelink's emergency management framework and community recovery assistance operations in general, with a specific focus on the 2009 North Queensland floods and Victorian bushfires. FaHCSIA's role during those disaster events was also considered as it played a key role in establishing the policy parameters of the services Centrelink delivered and addressing issues arising from policy implementation.
The objective of this audit was to assess the coordination of Australian, State and Territory Government climate change programs and the integrity of measuring and reporting of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and abatement. Particular emphasis was given to the:
coordination of Australian Government and State/Territory climate change programs;
integrity of the national inventory to measure Australia's greenhouse gas emissions; and
integrity of measuring and reporting government abatement measures.
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 audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of administrative arrangements for YA, including service delivery. The ANAO assessed DEEWR's and Centrelink's performance against three main criteria:
objectives and strategies for the ongoing management and performance measures for YA provide a firm basis for measurement against outcomes (Chapters 2 and 3);
YA services delivered are consistent with legislative and policy requirements, (Chapter 4); and
monitoring arrangements provide appropriate information for assessing service delivery performance (Chapter 5).
The Senate Order for Departmental and Agency Contracts (the Senate Order/the Order) was introduced in June 2001. The Order is one of several measures that the Senate introduced in recent years, to improve public knowledge of information on procurement and the expenditure of public funds. The main principle that underpins the Senate Order is that the Parliament's and public's access to this information should not be restricted by the inclusion of confidential information in contracts unless there is a sound basis for doing so. Public knowledge of information on contracted goods and services delivered to the government, can lead to better results for the Australian Government and the public. The Senate Order requirements have been amended over time to improve agency reporting, for example, on grants.
The objective of the audit was to review the effectiveness and efficiency of Centrelink's customer feedback system and the progress Centrelink had made in implementing the recommendations of the 2004–05 audit and the subsequent JCPAA inquiry.
The objective of the audit was to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the tip-off system, including Centrelink's management of privacy issues related to the tip-off management process.
The audit objective was to assess whether all agencies compiled Internet listings as required by the Senate Order, and to examine the appropriateness of the use, by selected agencies, of confidentiality provisions.
The audit objective was to form an opinion on the administrative effectiveness of the arrangements between DEEWR (previously DEWR) and Centrelink for the delivery of working age employment services under the Business Partnership Agreement (BPA).
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of personnel security arrangements at selected Australian Government organisations, including whether they satisfied the requirements of the PSM. To address this objective, the audit examined the extent to which the selected organisations implemented the 14 recommendations from the three previous reports.
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 audit objective was to assess how four key departments: Education, Science and Training (DEST); Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR); Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA); and Health and Ageing (DoHA) are implementing the Government's policy objective for Indigenous service delivery.
The objective of the audit was to determine whether the POI information recorded by Centrelink accords with relevant policy and thereby effectively supports informed decision-making regarding eligibility for the payment of various benefits to Centrelink customers
The audit objective was to form an opinion on the effectiveness of DEST's planning, assessment, and Funding Agreements management for the Australian Technical Colleges programme. At the time of the audit fieldwork (prior to the 2007–08 Budget) the Government had announced the establishment of 21 of the then target of 25 colleges. After fieldwork was completed the Government announced its intention to fund an additional three colleges in three new regions.
The criteria for this audit were designed to test whether DEST's management of the programme complied with its plans, procedures and guidelines, with the Act, and better practices for grants administration. For these purposes, the ANAO focused on DEST's:
planning for the implementation of the programme;
assessment of proposals to establish and operate the colleges; and
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of procedures and processes used by DEST and the ATO to record HECS–HELP student loans. To achieve this, the ANAO assessed the performance of DEST and the ATO against three criteria as follows:
DEST monitored student contributions set by higher education providers for consistency with Australian Government policy;
DEST paid HECS–HELP advance payments to higher education providers based on sound estimates, and recorded, reconciled and reported these payments; and
the ATO has established procedures and processes to correctly record HECS–HELP loans against student tax records.
The objective of the audit was to assess the management practices undertaken by APS agencies to achieve value for money and transparency in dealing with contracts for non-APS workers. The focus of the audit was on circumstances where agencies had a significant reliance on a non-APS workforce to assist in achieving their core functions. Regular reporting by agencies of expenditure on non-APS workers was outside the scope of this audit.
The objective of this audit was to determine the extent to which selected agencies have implemented the two recommendations of the previous audit; and the appropriateness of advice provided by Finance and the ATO. To address this audit objective, the audit assessed:
the roles of Finance and the ATO in clarifying: the interaction of the PB and SG Act; the ongoing role of the PB Act; and mechanisms to monitor Australian Government organisations' compliance with the PB Act;
the extent to which Finance and the ATO have provided guidance and other support to assist Australian Government organisations manage and meet statutory superannuation obligations for eligible contractors; and
whether Australian Government organisations have managed and met statutory superannuation obligations for contractors in past and current contracts.
The previous audit made ten recommendations to improve Centrelink's review and appeals system. Centrelink agreed to all recommendations. The objective of this follow-up audit was to review Centrelink's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.35, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System 2004-05.
The objective of this follow-up audit was to review Centrelink's progress in implementing the findings and recommendation relating to Centrelink's Customer Charter from Audit Report No.32 2004–05, Centrelink's Customer Charter and Community Consultation Program. This audit covers Centrelink's Customer Charter only and does not follow-up on the findings and recommendation on the Community Consultation Program aspect of the 2004–05 audit report.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the major elements of Centrelink's central, strategic level project management arrangements, as defined in the CPMF. It focused on how well:
the CPMF supports better management and service delivery in Centrelink;
the CPMF supports project managers and projects to comply with better project management principles, relevant legislation and guidelines; and
Centrelink monitors project performance and encouraged the attainment of project objectives.
The Age Pension is Australia's largest social security programme delivering approximately $22 billion to 1.9 million Australians in 2005-06. The Age Pension programme is administered by Centrelink on behalf of its client agency the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Centrelink's administration of complex assessments of customer entitlements for the Age Pension programme, particularly through the use of Complex Assessment Officers.
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
The audit objective was to examine progress in the development of an overarching approach and guidance for the management of the Commonwealth's intellectual property (Recommendation No. 2 of Audit Report No. 25 of 2003–04).
assess, in a selection of FMA Act and CAC Act agencies, how well the revised Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines had been implemented; and
identify any better practice or common problem areas to assist other agencies in their future procurement activities.
The audit focused on procurement requirements that had changed as a result of the revised CPGs, rather than being a more general audit of compliance with all procurement requirements. The audit was conducted in the following entities:
Australian Federal Police;
Bureau of Meteorology;
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO);
The audit examined the effectiveness and efficiency of the FAO's management of overpayments, within the FTB Programme. In particular, the ANAO considered the FAO's activities in relation to FTB debt prevention, identification, raising and recovery. The audit also compared the FAO's policy documentation and guidance material for staff, against relevant sections of Family Assistance legislation.
The objectives of the audit were to assess agency performance in relation to compiling their Internet contract listings as required by the Senate Order and the appropriateness of the use of confidentiality provisions in Commonwealth contracts. The audit involved a review in seven agencies of the processes used to compile their Internet contract listings and the use of confidentiality provisions in contracts.
The audit objective was to form an opinion on the adequacy of a select group of Australian Government agencies' management of Internet security, including following-up on agencies' implementation of recommendations from the ANAO's 2001 audit. The agencies audited were Australian Customs Service (ACS), Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) and Medicare Australia. Factors considered in selecting agencies were agency size based on funding levels, whether the agency was included in ANAO's 2001 audit (ACS, ARPANSA, and DEWR), whether the agency's ICT was managed in-house or outsourced, and the nature of the agency's website (that is, general or restricted access).
The overall objective of the audit was to assess whether the RSS Programme is effective and efficient in providing assurance on the levels of payment error and the resultant risks to the integrity of Australian Government outlays for payments administered by Centrelink. Specifically, the audit assessed whether: the RSS Programme meets the objectives outlined for it in the Portfolio Budget Statements under which funding was provided; there is an adequate methodology underpinning the RSS reviews; the RSS reviews are conducted effectively and efficiently, and adequate quality assurance mechanisms exist to assure the results obtained from the RSS reviews; and reporting by the agencies of the results of the RSS Programme is adequate and takes into consideration the issues identified in Audit Report No. 44 2002–03 Review of the Parenting Payment Single Program, and Audit Report No. 17 2002–03 Age Pension Entitlements.
The audit examined aspects of the integrity and management of customer data stored on ISIS. In particular, the audit considered measures of data accuracy, completeness and reliability. The scope of the audit also extended to aspects of Centrelink's IT control environment - in particular, controls over data entry.
Parliamentary Committees, particularly Senate Estimates Committees, have for many years taken an interest in the use of consultants by Australian government agencies. In this context, and having regard to the extent of expenditure by FMA Act agencies on consultants, the objective of this audit was to assess the accuracy and completeness of Australian government agencies' reporting of expenditure on consultants.
The ANAO conducted fieldwork in each of the audited agencies to identify the processes they used to design and review forms. The ANAO also identified the extent to which the agencies' forms are available online and their approaches to placing forms online.