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 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 review selected Defence public works projects submitted in the three year period ending mid 2007 to assess whether they had been submitted in accordance with the Committee's prevailing requirements for notification and review prior to entering into financial commitments for public works. The audit also examined the procedures applied by Defence to refer public works projects to the Committee, and identified administrative practices that may improve adherence with relevant legislative and administrative referral requirements.
The audit follows on from Audit Report No. 45 2004-2005, Management of Selected Defence Systems Program Offices, May 2005. That report is being considered by the JCPAA, as part of its current inquiry into Defence Financial Management and Equipment Acquisition at the Department of Defence and DMO.
The objective of this audit is to examine DIAC's implementation of the nine recommendations made in the earlier audit. The audit has also taken into account changed circumstances since the original audit. These include a heightened security environment after 11 September 2001 and the results of other relevant ANAO performance audit and financial statement work. The audit also examined ETA decision-making processes to gain assurance about its robustness in a changing risk environment. This issue came to attention in recent audits of visa management processes.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of management of the procurement of a major, replacement capability for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) by the DMO, and Defence. The audit reviewed the initial capability requirements and approval process; analysed the acquisition agreements for elements of the project; and examined the interim through-life support arrangements being put in place to support the capability.
This audit followed up the ANAO's 1997 performance audit report on ADF health services (Audit Report No.34 1996-97 Australian Defence Force Health Services), which focused on the delivery of non-operational health services to entitled members. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess Defence's implementation of recommendations made in the original audit report and their effectiveness in improving ADF health services.
The audit was conducted as a joint financial statement and performance audit of DVA's Information Technology (IT) systems. The objective of the financial statement component of the audit was to express an opinion on whether DVA could rely on its IT systems to support production of a reliable set of financial information for the financial statements. The objective of the performance audit component was to determine whether DVA's IT systems outputs adequately met quality and service delivery targets.
Causes and Consequences of Personnel Postings in the Australian Defence Force The audit arose from a Defence Efficiency Review (1997) recommendation that Defence could make savings on the large volume of postings it made every year. The audit examined the posting process and sought to provide assurance that Defence had identified and examined salient postings issues and was addressing them effectively.
The objective of the ANAO audit was to identify possible areas for improvement in the Australian Defence Force's management of its Reserve forces. The audit focused on major aspects of the Reserves including roles and tasks, force structure, capability, training, individual readiness, equipment, facilities, recruitment, retention, conditions of service and administration. The audit covered the Australian Naval Reserve, the Australian Army Reserve and the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve. However, due to its size and cost, the Army Reserve was a major focus of the audit activity.
The audit reviewed the Defence Department's management of the Defence Cooperation (DC) Program, through which Australia interacts with and provides assistance to security forces in South East Asia and the South Pacific. The primary aim of the program is to support Australia's defence relationships. Activities conducted through the program include training, study visits, personnel exchanges and combined exercises with elements of the various regional armed forces. The Pacific Patrol Boat Project is part of the program. The objectives of the audit were to:
1) consider how Defence assesses performance in meeting DC objectives;
2) review Defence's development of DC objectives; and
3) identify areas for improvement in managing DC resources.
The audit examined the review of decisions on veterans' disability compensation. The audit objective was to examine the management of internal review by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) and external review by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) of decisions by the Repatriation Commission on veterans' claims for disability compensation.
The Defence Estate comprises the land, buildings and other facilities that Defence uses across Australia. These facilities are vital to achieving the Defence mission - to prevent or defeat the use of armed force against Australia and its interests. The Estate has a gross replacement value of $14.8 billion. Defence Estate Organisation's (DEO's) Facilities Operations (FACOPS) Program delivers general maintenance and minor new works to Defence facilities on a regional basis across the country. DEO's Estate Operations and Planning Branch and its nine Regional Estate Centres are responsible for the FACOPS Program. Resources available for the Program have been reduced in recent years. The total DEO budget for 2000-01, which includes funds for capital works, facilities operations and property management, is $2.6 billion. Of this total, the FACOPS Program has a cash allocation of $213 million and an additional $15.6 million for employee expenses associated with the Program's 283 staff. The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of selected Defence facilities operations, including tendering and contracting, with a view to adding value with practical recommendations for enhancing operations.
The objective of this audit was to establish whether Defence has developed sound fraud control arrangements that are consistent with better practice and fulfil its responsibilities for the protection of public property, revenue, expenditure, and rights and privileges from fraudulent exploitation.
The audit reviewed Defence's higher-level management of its knowledge system equipment acquisition projects. These amount to $8.5b. The focus of the audit was on the opportunities for Defence to adopt a much more coherent and integrated approach to knowledge systems management prospectively rather than on emphasising current system compatibility issues.
The audit reviewed the Amphibious Transport Ship Project, involving the acquisition and modification of two second-hand US Navy ships . The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Defence's management of the project, focusing on the capability development process, costs and schedule issues, contract issues, the management of project risks and project review processes.
This audit is a follow-up to ANAO Audit Report No.31 1995-96 Environmental Management of Commonwealth Land: Site Contamination and Pollution Prevention (‘the original audit'). The objectives of the follow-up audit were to determine: the extent to which Defence has implemented the agreed recommendations contained in the original audit (relating to its environmental management and the management of unexploded ordnance (UXO) on non-Commonwealth land) and; the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations in improving the environmental management of Commonwealth land.