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 follow up audit was to assess the extent to which Customs has implemented seven of the previous audit's recommendations; the two recommendations relating to strategic and tactical taskings and dissemination of intelligence will be considered in the context of the planned performance audit of Illegal Foreign Fishing in Australia's Northern Waters.
The objective of this audit was to assess and report on the administration of the regional delivery of NHT 2 and the NAP.
The scope of the audit encompassed both Environment and DAFF, including the Joint Team of staff from both departments working together under a common management structure for the delivery of both programs. The audit focused on:
the implementation of the regional delivery arrangements;
governance and financial management for regional delivery; and
monitoring, evaluation and reporting on the programs' performance.
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 follow up audit was to examine Customs' implementation of the eight recommendations in the ANAO Report No.16 2004–05 and the two related recommendations from JCPAA Report 404. The audit has had regard to issues affecting the implementation of the recommendations and has taken into account changed circumstances and new administrative arrangements since the previous audit.
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 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 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:
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 objective of the audit was to assess and report on the administration of the Act by the department in terms of protecting and conserving threatened species and threatened ecological communities in Australia.
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 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