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 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 audit scope covered the management of the AusLink R2R Standard Program and the AusLink R2R Supplementary Program. The scope did not include management of the Nation Building Roads to Recovery Program, which has only recently commenced. The audit objectives were to:
assess the effectiveness of the management of the AusLink Roads to Recovery Program;
assess the delivery of the program and management of the funding, including the extent to which the program has provided additional (rather than substitute) funding for land transport infrastructure; and
identify opportunities for improvements to the management of the program.
Recent performance audit priority for the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio has been directed at the administration of funding for land transport. Accordingly, this audit is one of a series ANAO is undertaking of land transport funding programs. Four audits have already been completed, namely:
ANAO Audit Report No. 31 2005–06, Roads to Recovery;
ANAO Audit Report No. 45 2006–07, The National Black Spot Program;
ANAO Audit Report No. 22 2007–08, Administration of Grants to the Australian Rail Track Corporation; and
ANAO Audit Report No. 29 2008–09, Delivery of Projects on the AusLink National Network.
The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess the extent to which Airservices Australia, and where relevant, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), have implemented the four ANAO recommendations contained in the previous audit report.
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.
determine the extent to which government entities complied with the requirement to publish and maintain documents online that were presented to the Parliament;
evaluate selected government entities' policies and practices regarding online publishing; and
assess AGIMO's policy and guidance in support of online publishing.
To address this objective the audit was conducted in three parts. Firstly, we reviewed a sample of papers tabled between 2000 and 2008 in order to assess their availability online. Next, we examined the online publishing practices of five government entities. These were the: Australian Federal Police (AFP); Department of the House of Representatives (DHR); Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure); Department of the Treasury (Treasury); and National Archives of Australia (NAA). Finally, we reviewed AGIMO's role in supporting government entities in their online publishing practices.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's management of the Settlement Grants Program. The ANAO assessed DIAC's performance in terms of how effectively it planned for funding rounds, assessed and allocated grants, monitored and evaluated the program, and managed relationships with its stakeholders. In doing so, the ANAO focused on SGP projects that received funding in the 2007–08.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DIAC's management of MAL. The scope was confined to DIAC's management and use of the system: it did not examine the work of others with an interest in the system, such as security agencies.