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 assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Fixing Houses for Better Health program since 2005.
The audit reviewed the two elements of the program for which FaHCSIA is responsible: management of the service delivery arrangements and overall performance monitoring and reporting. Following the development of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which introduced new approaches to the delivery of Indigenous programs, FaHCSIA made changes to FHBH for the 2009–11 phase. The audit has focused on both the 2005–09 and the 2009–11 phases. This provided coverage of the program's normal operations as well enabling the audit to consider the modifications made to the program for the 2009–11 phase.
Against this background, the audit considered whether:
program management arrangements had been established that were suitable for the size, nature and objectives of the FHBH program;
service delivery arrangements were designed to support the achievement of the program's objectives and FaHCSIA's management of the program; and
FaHCSIA used robust systems to monitor achievement of the program objectives.
The ANAO also considered whether there was any experience from the department's management of FHBH that could be broadly applied to FaHCSIA's management of the National Partnership Agreement.
The audit assessed FaHCSIA's management of AACAP and how the department monitors the contribution the program is making to the improvement of primary and environmental health, and living conditions, in remote Indigenous communities.
The audit examined program delivery under the 2006–2009 MoU, as well as the planning for the 2010 project under the variation to the 2006–2009 MoU. As part of the audit the ANAO considered:
program strategy and implementation including the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders, community selection and scope of works (Chapter 2);
the financial management of the program and the changing role of the Contracted Program Manager (Chapter 3); and
performance measures, including FaHCSIA's performance reporting framework, and approach to monitoring and reporting performance against the stated program objectives (Chapter 4).
The audit focused on AACAP in so far as it relates to Indigenous community outcomes. It did not consider the program from the perspective of the Australian Defence Force capability building.
The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the GBM initiative, and the extent to which the initiative has contributed to improvements in community engagement and government coordination in the Northern Territory.
The audit focused on FaHCSIA's management of the GBM initiative under the NTER. The audit scope did not include additional functions assigned to some GBMs in the Northern Territory under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (the National Partnership Agreement), or to Australian Government staff with similar roles and functions supporting the implementation of the National Partnership Agreement in Queensland and Western Australia.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, Centrelink undertakes its role effectively, so as to support the timely implementation of the Tribunals' decisions about customers' entitlements. In assessing Centrelink's performance, the ANAO examined whether:
the information provided by Centrelink, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, effectively supported customers' and Tribunals' decision-making;
the relationships and administrative arrangements between Centrelink, DEEWR and FaHCSIA supported the effective management of the appeal process and the capture of issues that may have broader implications for legislation, policy and service delivery; and
Centrelink implemented SSAT and AAT decisions in an effective and timely manner.
The audit focused on the external review and appeal mechanisms and completes the cycle of audits on Centrelink's review and appeal system. The audit examined those appeals where an implementation action was required and did not consider SSAT and AAT appeals that were dismissed, withdrawn or were not within the Tribunals' jurisdiction.
The objective of this audit was to assess key aspects of the establishment and administration of HIP by DEWHA as well as the transition of the program to DCCEE. All phases of the program were examined with particular emphasis for Phase 2 being given to:
The objective of the audit was to assess how well agencies had implemented the CPGs and relevant FMA legislation when undertaking Direct Source procurement.
The audit examined whether selected agencies had developed a sound procurement framework; appropriately classified procurement methods when meeting external reporting requirements; implemented the CPGs and relevant legislation when Direct Sourcing; and established effective procurement monitoring and review arrangements.
The ANAO selected four FMA Act agencies to provide a cross-section of the 104 agencies that reported procurement activity in AusTender in 2008–09. The agencies selected for audit were:
the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA);
the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Innovation);
the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA); and
the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).
The ANAO examined a stratified random sample of 645 procurements valued at $10 000 and over, across the four agencies. More detailed testing was undertaken for the 285 Direct Source procurements in the sample.
On 3 February 2010, Senator Christine Milne wrote to the Auditor General raising concerns about DEWHA's administration of the Green Loans program and requesting a performance audit of the program. Issues raised included: uncapped assessor numbers; problems with the delivery of the program; the quality of assessor training and assessments provided to households; the lack of an audit facility within the program; and equitable access to work under the program.
In light of Senator Milne's request and other concerns in relation to the administration of the program, the Auditor-General agreed on 25 February 2010 to conduct a performance audit of the program. The objective of the audit was to examine key aspects of the establishment and administration of the Green Loans program by DEWHA and the program's transition to DCCEE. Particular emphasis was given to the program's three main elements:
training, registration and contracting of assessors;
scheduling, conduct, and reporting of home sustainability assessments, and the associated payments to assessors; and
provision of green loans to householders, and the associated payments to participating financial institutions.
The audit also examined the extent to which steps had been taken by DEWHA and DCCEE to assess whether the Green Loans program was achieving its objectives.
The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracts. This included assessing compliance with the Order and following up on the implementation of recommendations made in previous Senate Order audits.
The audit involved three components:
an examination of a stratified random sample of 150 contracts listed as containing confidentiality provisions from material and small agencies across the Australian Government to determine whether confidentiality provisions were used and reported appropriately;
an examination of all FMA Act agencies' calendar year 2009 contract listings, and ministers' letters of advice, to assess compliance with the requirements of the Order, and check reported instances of excluded contracts; and
a follow-up of the implementation of previous audit recommendations relating to the administration of the Senate Order in four agencies. The selected agencies were the: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF); and the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court). The selected agencies were audited in one of the ANAO's previous five audits of Senate Order compliance.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the selection, implementation, operation and monitoring of FRCs by AGD and FaHCSIA. The three main criteria for this audit assessed whether AGD and FaHCSIA had effectively:
planned and implemented the FRC initiative, including the FRC selection and funding processes;
undertaken administration activities to guide the operation and progress of the FRC initiative towards meeting its objectives; and
monitored, evaluated and reported on the performance of FRCs.
The audit objective was to assess whether agreements between Australian Government (Commonwealth) agencies reflect sound administrative practices. To meet this objective, the audit reviewed current government policy and a range of better practice guidelines, conducted interviews with agencies and examined cross-agency agreements, to formulate suitable audit criteria and subsequently develop better practice principles.
The scope of the audit covered Centrelink's emergency management framework and community recovery assistance operations in general, with a specific focus on the 2009 North Queensland floods and Victorian bushfires. FaHCSIA's role during those disaster events was also considered as it played a key role in establishing the policy parameters of the services Centrelink delivered and addressing issues arising from policy implementation.
The objective of this audit was to assess the coordination of Australian, State and Territory Government climate change programs and the integrity of measuring and reporting of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and abatement. Particular emphasis was given to the:
coordination of Australian Government and State/Territory climate change programs;
integrity of the national inventory to measure Australia's greenhouse gas emissions; and
integrity of measuring and reporting government abatement measures.
The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of specific climate change programs by the departments of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and Resources, Energy and Tourism. In undertaking this audit, particular emphasis was given to the implementation of good administrative practice and the extent to which the program objectives were being met. The audit followed four lines of inquiry:
development of program objectives and assessment of program risks;
assessment and approval of competitive grant applications;
assessment and approval of rebate applications; and
The objective of this audit was to assess whether the WSA program has been administered effectively by the NWC/DEWHA, as relevant, and is achieving its stated program objective. Specifically, the ANAO examined whether:
funding proposals have been assessed and approved in a fair, consistent manner and in accordance with applicable criteria, program guidelines and better practice;
appropriate funding arrangements have been established with proponents, having regard to the size of the grant, the type of entity involved and the nature of the project; and
DEWHA (and previously the NWC) is actively monitoring whether proponents are complying with their obligations, and grant payments are made only in accordance with funding agreements.
More broadly, the audit examined DEWHA's strategy for evaluating and reporting on the long-term benefits of the program.
As an element of the arrangements implemented to support the role of the ANAO in reviewing campaigns' compliance with the Guidelines announced on 2 July 2008, the ANAO advised the chair of the JCPAA that the ANAO will provide regular summary reports to Parliament. Section 25 of the Auditor-General's Act 1997 provides for the tabling of such reports.
The objective of this audit was to assess and report on the progress being made by Government agencies in achieving better practice in green office procurement and sustainable office management. The scope of the audit included agencies incorporated under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 as well as a sample of bodies incorporated under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Sixty-three agencies were included in an audit survey. Detailed validation was carried out in nine of these agencies.
The objective of this audit was to assess how effectively FaHCSIA and DEEWR have undertaken their roles and responsibilities for specialist disability employment services under the current (third) CSTDA.
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 audit objective was to assess how four key departments: Education, Science and Training (DEST); Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR); Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA); and Health and Ageing (DoHA) are implementing the Government's policy objective for Indigenous service delivery.
whether FaCSIA has effectively administered the distribution of funding for the Local Answers, VSEG, Reconnect and Minor Capital Upgrade programmes, including promoting the relevant schemes to potential applicants, developing application forms, handling and appraising applications, selecting recipients and making grant announcements;
the pattern of approvals of grants to States/Territories and to electorates held by the Government and Opposition parties under the Local Answers and VSEG programmes; and
whether FaCSIA administered eight one-off grants to community organisations provided as a result of Government commitments during the 2004 Federal Election campaign in line with relevant legislation and guidelines.
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.
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
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 audit examined the effectiveness and efficiency of the FAO's management of overpayments, within the FTB Programme. In particular, the ANAO considered the FAO's activities in relation to FTB debt prevention, identification, raising and recovery. The audit also compared the FAO's policy documentation and guidance material for staff, against relevant sections of Family Assistance legislation.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether FaCSIA administers grants effectively, according to better practice guidelines, and consistently across geographic areas and the range of programmes included in the scope of the audit. The scope of the audit included grants administered by FaCSIA between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2005, relating to programmes falling within four of the five groups of programmes providing funding for families and communities namely: Community Support; Family Assistance; Childcare Support; and Youth and Student Support. In total, these groups involved total expenditure of some $533 million in 2004–05.