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 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 determine the extent to which selected agencies have implemented the two recommendations of the previous audit; and the appropriateness of advice provided by Finance and the ATO. To address this audit objective, the audit assessed:
the roles of Finance and the ATO in clarifying: the interaction of the PB and SG Act; the ongoing role of the PB Act; and mechanisms to monitor Australian Government organisations' compliance with the PB Act;
the extent to which Finance and the ATO have provided guidance and other support to assist Australian Government organisations manage and meet statutory superannuation obligations for eligible contractors; and
whether Australian Government organisations have managed and met statutory superannuation obligations for contractors in past and current contracts.
The objective of the audit was to assess the coordination of Australian Government assistance to Solomon Islands through RAMSI, including the establishment of objectives and an outcomes monitoring framework. In particular, the audit examined arrangements for: coordination between Australian Government agencies; strategic planning and risk management; measuring the effectiveness of RAMSI; and reporting to RAMSI's Australian stakeholders.
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 previous audit made ten recommendations to improve Centrelink's review and appeals system. Centrelink agreed to all recommendations. The objective of this follow-up audit was to review Centrelink's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.35, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System 2004-05.
The objective of this follow-up audit was to review Centrelink's progress in implementing the findings and recommendation relating to Centrelink's Customer Charter from Audit Report No.32 2004–05, Centrelink's Customer Charter and Community Consultation Program. This audit covers Centrelink's Customer Charter only and does not follow-up on the findings and recommendation on the Community Consultation Program aspect of the 2004–05 audit report.
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 effectiveness of the major elements of Centrelink's central, strategic level project management arrangements, as defined in the CPMF. It focused on how well:
the CPMF supports better management and service delivery in Centrelink;
the CPMF supports project managers and projects to comply with better project management principles, relevant legislation and guidelines; and
Centrelink monitors project performance and encouraged the attainment of project objectives.
The Age Pension is Australia's largest social security programme delivering approximately $22 billion to 1.9 million Australians in 2005-06. The Age Pension programme is administered by Centrelink on behalf of its client agency the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Centrelink's administration of complex assessments of customer entitlements for the Age Pension programme, particularly through the use of Complex Assessment Officers.
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