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 objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Customs and Border Protection's performance in managing and coordinating enforcement operations against illegal foreign fishing in Australia's northern waters. The audit focused on Customs and Border Protection's role within the whole of government policy coordination framework; the effectiveness of its intelligence support for operational planning and policy and strategy development; its performance in planning, prioritising and administering effective enforcement operations; and its performance in measuring and reporting on the effectiveness of the program.
The objective of this audit is to assess Customs and Border Protection's processing of incoming international air passengers in the primary line, in particular the extent to which: (a) systems and controls effectively support the referral of incoming air passengers who pose a risk and those carrying prohibited items; (b) air passengers presenting an immigration risk are processed appropriately; and (c) Customs and Border Protection has arrangements in place to effectively promote co-operation and information sharing between Customs and Border Protection and DIAC.
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 audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DIAC's administration of the health requirement of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). To achieve this objective, the ANAO examined whether DIAC was setting and implementing the health requirement in accordance with the Act, the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), and DIAC's own guidelines.
The audit objective was to assess whether the early stages of DIAC's preparations for the re-tendering of the detention and health services contracts were consistent with sound practice. The audit focused on governance arrangements, in particular the recordkeeping arrangements, roles and responsibilities of personnel, expert advisors and the probity auditor—matters raised in the previous audit report. The audit did not examine the RFT, which is not due to be issued until April 2007.
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.