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 the audit was to report on the effectiveness of Defence’s approach to the acceptance into service of Navy capability, and to identify where better practice may be used by CDG, DMO and Navy.
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of monitoring arrangements (by the Accreditation Agency) and compliance activities (by DoHA) put in place to achieve residential aged care homes’ compliance with the Accreditation Standards and their other, related, responsibilities under the Act and its associated instruments.
The ANAO’s assessment considered whether:
— a sector-wide compliance strategy was in place and aligned with effective monitoring and compliance activities at the operational level; — there was a clear articulation of the separat but complementary roles and responsibilities of DoHA and the Accreditation Agency; and — performance information gathered by both agencies to support public reporting and business improvements was useful and enabled comparison of performance over time.
The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the management of maintenance of the Defence estate, taking particular account of planning and delivery aspects.
The audit examined: Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and supporting tools related to the planning and delivery of the maintenance of the estate; and services provided to Defence by private sector firms in relation to maintenance activities. The audit did not focus on contract management matters, nor on the systems used by Defence to maintain information related to estate maintenance.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence is effectively managing the EO Services Contract.
The audit focused mainly on Defence's contract management framework, including the arrangements to monitor the contractor’s performance in delivering services under the contract. The audit also examined the processes used by Defence to develop the current version of the contract and the extent to which the revised contract, as negotiated in 2006, provides an assurance of better value for money when compared to the original contract signed in 2001.
The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of explosive ordnance by the end users of this materiel in Air Force, Army and Navy (the Services). In particular, the focus was on the effectiveness of arrangements for the oversight and physical control of explosive ordnance once it is issued to Service units.
The audit reviewed Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and inventory management systems for explosive ordnance at the unit level in the ADF, from receipt and storage through to the use or return of explosive ordnance.The audit also examined the relationship between the management of explosive ordnance at the unit level and the Explosive Ordnance Services Contract and, where relevant, the regional Garrison Support Services (GSS) Contracts.
The Objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of GPET's management of the general practice training programs, AGPT and PGPPP, the latter being a responsibility that GPET assumed in 2010.
The objective of the audit was to assess FSANZ's administration of its food standard functions, as specified in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act, 1991 (last amended 2007). Particular emphasis was given to whether:
FSANZ's performance management and reporting provided effective support and ensures accountability;
FSANZ effectively administered its food standard development and variation function, including its stakeholder management; and
FSANZ effectively monitored the implementation of its standards and coordinates relevant jurisdictions to address market failures.
The objective of the audit was to assess DoHA's effectiveness:
in undertaking PIP program planning, program monitoring and review; and
with Medicare Australia, in ensuring PIP program delivery to general practices and their medical practitioners.
In undertaking the audit, the ANAO considered the 12 incentives that comprised the PIP up to August 2009. The three most recently introduced incentives at the time of audit fieldwork, namely, Domestic Violence, GP Aged Care Access and eHealth incentives, were examined in greater detail and formed case studies to support audit analysis. The ANAO also sought views on the program administration from industry, including from general practices directly through an online survey.
With regard to accreditation of general practice, the audit scope did not include an assessment of the Standards nor the work of the bodies that undertake accreditation of general practices. The ANAO's focus on general practice accreditation related to DoHA's management of program entry criteria.