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 objective of this audit was to evaluate whether selected Australian Government agencies were effectively managing security risks arising from the use of contractors. To address this objective, the audit evaluated relevant policies and practices in the audited agencies against a series of minimum requirements in the management of security issues in procurement and contracting activity. These minimum requirements were developed from the guidance and standards contained in the PSM and also from the ANAO's previous protective security audits.

The audit focused on two broad types of contracting arrangements: contracting of security functions; and contracting of any service or business function that requires, or which has the potential to require, contractors to access sensitive or security classified information.

The following Australian Government agencies were involved in this audit:

• Australian Customs Service (Customs);
• Commonwealth Superannuation Administration (ComSuper);
• Department of Finance and Administration (Finance); and
• Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

In addition, the Attorney-General's Department, which is responsible for the maintenance of the PSM and for providing advice on contemporary protective security policies and practices, was consulted during the audit.

The objectives of the audit were to:

• examine Customs' management of the CMR project; and
• determine whether the ICS and CCF met:
  • project and operational objectives; and
  • user capability and functionality requirements.

Particular emphasis was given to the following areas:

• the project management framework that supported the CMR project;
• implementation arrangements for the ICS; and
• ongoing operational arrangements.

After this audit commenced, Customs engaged Booz Allen Hamilton to undertake a separate review of the ICS. The purpose of that review was to provide Customs with a forward looking report on the lessons to be learned from the implementation of the ICS, its current status and the opportunities to enhance benefits for both Government and industry. The ANAO consulted closely with the Booz Allen Hamilton team and is supportive of the recommendations in their report, which was released in May 2006. The review made thirteen recommendations relating to the ongoing management and governance of the Cargo Management Re-engineering Program at both strategic and tactical levels.

The objective of the audit was to:

• 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);
• Department of Defence;
• Department of Education, Science & Training;
• Family Court of Australia; and
• National Museum of Australia.

The objective of the performance audit was to review the progress in the delivery of contractual commitments for Industry Development (ID) for the five contracts awarded under the IT Outsourcing Initiative. In particular, the audit examined the effectiveness of the monitoring by DCITA of achievement against contractual commitments for ID; assessed the impact of changes to the IT outsourcing environment on the management and monitoring of ongoing ID obligations; and identified practices that have improved administrative arrangements.