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 Scheme is being administered effectively by the department. The ANAO focussed on Program Year 1 of the Scheme, 2005–06, and examined DIISR's arrangements for:
assessing the eligibility of entities to receive grants;
assessing entities' claims for eligible expenditure;
adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme when calculating and paying claims, and managing any debts that arise;
and evaluating and reporting on whether the statutory objective of the Scheme is being met.
The audit did not examine the other components of the 2005–2015 industry assistance package; nor did it examine any of the programs delivered under the previous assistance package (2000–2005).
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of Tourism Australia's governance arrangements, the management of its marketing contracts, and whether outcomes are being achieved. The audit reviewed Tourism Australia's:
procurement processes for selecting service providers;
management of service provider contracts; and
governance framework including planning, performance management and reporting.
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 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 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 objective of the audit was to assess the Commonwealth's administration of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS) . The audit reviewed program governance, scheme promotion and registration, management of credit allocations, and compliance processes.
The audit assessed DITR's and the ATO's administration of the R&D Tax Concession including review processes for registration and subsequent expenditure claims, by eligible companies. In particular, the audit focussed on measuring performance, risk management, and information systems including security and data integrity.
The IIF program is designed to redress the low level of provision in Australia of high risk venture capital for small new technology - based companies commercialising research and development. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the IIF program was being effectively managed by the Industry Research and Development (IR&D) Board and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to achieve the program objectives. The audit focused on corporate governance arrangements for program administration, the selection process to award licences, the safeguards to protect the Commonwealth's financial interests, management of licence agreements, and program performance management. The audit also examined program results to date from available data.