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 focus of this report is on the year end results of the financial statement audits of all general purpose reporting entities for the 2005–06 financial year. Financial management issues (where relevant) arising out of the audits and their relationship to internal control structures are also included in this report.
The audit objective was to form an opinion on the adequacy of a select group of Australian Government agencies' management of Internet security, including following-up on agencies' implementation of recommendations from the ANAO's 2001 audit. The agencies audited were Australian Customs Service (ACS), Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) and Medicare Australia. Factors considered in selecting agencies were agency size based on funding levels, whether the agency was included in ANAO's 2001 audit (ACS, ARPANSA, and DEWR), whether the agency's ICT was managed in-house or outsourced, and the nature of the agency's website (that is, general or restricted access).
The objective of the audit was to examine how effectively Health manages the risk of PBS drugs not being used according to PBS subsidy conditions. The audit examined two areas: during listing, how Health identified and implemented measures to decrease the risks of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions; and following listing, how Health confirmed that usage and expenditure on PBS drugs was consistent with estimates. The report examines selected approaches used by Health, which have evolved in recent years, to manage the risk of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions. The report also acknowledges and describes the role of the expert committees. The scope of the audit was limited to PBS drugs for which Health pays a subsidy. The audit did not examine Health's role in educating consumers, prescribers, and other health professionals, or the implications of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement for the PBS. Additionally, the ANAO did not form an opinion on the success of Medicare Australia's compliance role. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO interviewed Health personnel, committee members and stakeholders, examined relevant documents and files, analysed drug usage and expenditure data, and attended a number of committee meetings. To assist the audit process, the ANAO selected a sample of eight drugs. The drugs were selected due to their high cost to the PBS and/or high usage, or because the drug has had a particularly interesting PBS history. The sample is not representative of all drugs on the PBS. In 2004–05, 15.3 million prescriptions were written for these eight drugs, with the Government subsidy totalling $1.05 billion.
The follow-up audit assessed the extent to which the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Department of Health and Ageing (Health), and Medicare Australia had implemented the six recommendations from Audit Report No.47 2001–02, Administration of the 30 Per Cent Private Health Insurance Rebate. The audit also looked at: the implementation of some of the major suggestions for improvement in the original audit; and the current validity of some of the positive major findings from that audit. The audit found that the ATO, Health and Medicare Australia have acted upon the recommendations contained in Audit Report No.47 2001–02 and, overall, the administration of the Rebate is currently being undertaken effectively.
The audit objective was to assess Health's administration of primary care funding, with a focus on the administrative practices of the Primary Care Division and Health's State and Territory Offices. In forming an opinion on the audit objective, the ANAO reviewed 41 agreements, with a combined value of $252 million. The ANAO also reviewed relevant documentation and files, interviewed programme officers and met with a number of stakeholders. The audit comments on a range of issues, including the utility of funding agreements, monitoring, payments, and support for administrators.
The objective of the audit was to examine processes used by Defence and the DMO to procure explosive ordnance for the ADF, with an emphasis on Army requirements. The audit reviewed the extent to which the DMO effectively translated the explosive ordnance requirements of the ADF, and particularly of Army, into procurement and through life support arrangements.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of management of the procurement of a major, new capability for the ADF by the DMO and Defence. The audit reviewed the initial capability requirements and approval process; analysed the contract negotiation process; and examined management of the Acquisition and Through-Life-Support Contracts. Coverage of the audit extended from development of the concept for the requirement, to acceptance of deliverables in the period prior to the award of the Australian Military Type Certificate (see shaded area of Figure 1). The audit fieldwork was undertaken during the delivery phase of the Project, following delivery of ARH numbers 1, 2 and 5.
Parliamentary Committees, particularly Senate Estimates Committees, have for many years taken an interest in the use of consultants by Australian government agencies. In this context, and having regard to the extent of expenditure by FMA Act agencies on consultants, the objective of this audit was to assess the accuracy and completeness of Australian government agencies' reporting of expenditure on consultants.
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DMO's JORN and JFASmaintenance and support arrangements. The audit examined the maintenanceand operation of the JORN and JFAS radars, and their facilities.