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 the Department of Defence’s progress in delivering Multi-Role Helicopters (MRH90 aircraft) to the ADF through AIR 9000 Phases 2, 4 and 6, within approved cost, schedule and performance parameters.
The objective of the audit was to report on the progress of the current phase of the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Program, which is known as SEA 4000 Phase 3–Build. This phase commenced in June 2007, and covers the finalisation of the detailed design, the signing of the Alliance and Platform System Design contracts, and the construction and delivery of the ships by the Industry Participants to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO).
The objective of this report is to provide the Auditor-General’s independent assurance over the status of selected Major Projects, as reflected in the Project Data Summary Sheets (PDSSs) prepared by the DMO, and the Statement by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) DMO. Assurance from the ANAO’s review of the preparation of the PDSSs by the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is conveyed in the Auditor-General’s Independent Review Report, prepared pursuant to the endorsed Guidelines, contained in Part 3.
The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s implementation of reforms to capability development since the introduction of the two-pass process for government approval of capability projects and government’s acceptance of the reforms recommended by the Mortimer Review. The scope of this audit included the requirements phase and, to a limited extent, the acquisition phase of major capability development projects, focusing upon changes flowing from the major reforms.
The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of Defence’s processes, including compliance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act), the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (FMA Regulations), and relevant Commonwealth and Defence procurement requirements, to select the capability solution recommended to the Government to satisfy the requirements of AIR 8000 Phase 2.
The objective of the audit was to report on the effectiveness of Defence’s approach to the acceptance into service of Navy capability, and to identify where better practice may be used by CDG, DMO and Navy.
The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the management of maintenance of the Defence estate, taking particular account of planning and delivery aspects.
The audit examined: Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and supporting tools related to the planning and delivery of the maintenance of the estate; and services provided to Defence by private sector firms in relation to maintenance activities. The audit did not focus on contract management matters, nor on the systems used by Defence to maintain information related to estate maintenance.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence is effectively managing the EO Services Contract.
The audit focused mainly on Defence's contract management framework, including the arrangements to monitor the contractor’s performance in delivering services under the contract. The audit also examined the processes used by Defence to develop the current version of the contract and the extent to which the revised contract, as negotiated in 2006, provides an assurance of better value for money when compared to the original contract signed in 2001.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Department of Infrastructure and Transport’s and the Attorney‐General’s Department’s management of the Aviation and Maritime Security Identification Card (ASIC and MSIC) schemes.
The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of explosive ordnance by the end users of this materiel in Air Force, Army and Navy (the Services). In particular, the focus was on the effectiveness of arrangements for the oversight and physical control of explosive ordnance once it is issued to Service units.
The audit reviewed Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and inventory management systems for explosive ordnance at the unit level in the ADF, from receipt and storage through to the use or return of explosive ordnance.The audit also examined the relationship between the management of explosive ordnance at the unit level and the Explosive Ordnance Services Contract and, where relevant, the regional Garrison Support Services (GSS) Contracts.
The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of FaHCSIA's and IBA's management of the HOIL program. In particular, the audit examined the administrative design of the program, its implementation and progress in achieving the expected results.
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 audit examined the effectiveness of DEEWR's administrative arrangements supporting the delivery of Indigenous childcare services through MACS and crèches, including the approaches DEEWR uses to monitor the achievement of the BBF sub-program objective.
In conducting the audit, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reviewed three key areas:
program administration—DEEWR's administrative systems and processes supporting the delivery of Indigenous childcare services through MACS and crèches and the broader BBF sub-program;
management of service provider funding agreements—DEEWR's systems and processes for managing MACS and crèche service providers' funding agreements; and
monitoring and reporting performance—the effectiveness of DEEWR's processes for monitoring the performance of service providers, and the achievement of the outputs and outcomes of the BBF sub-program.
The ANAO sought not to duplicate the work of DEEWR's Internal Audit function, and in doing so referred to the findings of the recent internal audit review of the CCSSP, where these were relevant and appropriate.
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 objective of the audit was to consider the status of workforce planning by APS agencies against the background of the ANAO's 2001 Better Practice Guide Planning for the Workforce of the Future, in light of there commendations made in the MAC Organisational Renewal 2001 and the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report Recruitmentand Training in the Australian Public Service 2003. Workforce planning was defined as a continuous process of shaping the workforce to ensure it is capable of delivering organisational objectives now and in the future.
The objective of the audit was to express an opinion on the effectiveness of HOP management having regard to: compliance with applicable Australian Government policies; compliance with internal guidelines to assist loans officers to assess applications and manage loans; and programme performance reporting.
The objectives of the Australian National Audit Office's (ANAO) performance audit were to: examine the efficiency and effectiveness of agencies' procurement and management of legal services arrangements; determine adherence to Australian Government policy requirements; examine the effectiveness of the OLSC's monitoring of agencies' compliance with Government policy requirements; examine the OLSC's role in assisting agencies to comply with Government policy.
The objectives of the audit were to:determine whether entities had established effective internal control frameworks and processes to mitigate the risks associated with FBT obligations and transactions;assess whether the internal control frameworks and processes supported the payment of FBT and the reporting of reportable fringe benefit amounts (RFBAs) on employee payment summaries in accordance with the legislation;identify sound and better practices in the administration, management and operation of systems for collecting, collating, calculating, reporting and remitting FBT; and as necessary, recommend improvements in the controls and practices relating to the administration of FBT in the audited entities.
The audit focuses on DMO's equipment acquisition and support, at the system program management level. The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of Defence's capital equipment project definition, approval, acquisition and logistics support management. The SPOs subject to audit are:Aerospace Systems Division's Tactical Fighter Systems Program Office (TFSPO), which is responsible for acquisition and logistics support management of the Air Force's F/A-18 and Hawk 127 fleets and associated equipment. TFSPO is located at Williamtown, NSW; Land Systems Division's Track Manoeuvre Systems Program Office (TMSPO), which is responsible for the acquisition and logistics support management of Army's Leopard Tanks and M113 Armed Personnel Carrier fleets. TMSPO is located in Melbourne;Electronic and Weapon Systems Division's Over-the-Horizon Radar Systems Program Office (OTHRSPO), which is responsible for acquisition and logistics support management of the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) and Jindalee OTHR systems. OTHRSPO is located within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) precinct at Edinburgh, South Australia; and Maritime Systems Division's Fast Frigate Guided System Program Office (FFGSPO), which is responsible for the support and upgrade of the Navy's FFG fleet. FFGSPO is located at Garden Island, Sydney.In view of the significant role that DMO's SPOs play in managing major capital equipment acquisition projects, the audit includes a case study of the $1.448 billion Fast Frigate Guided (FFG) Upgrade Project. A high level of audit assurance is not able to be provided on the FFG Upgrade Project given deficiencies in the FFGSPO information management systems and deficiencies in the level of design and development disclosure provided to SPO personnel by the FFG Upgrade Prime Contractor. The ANAO was unable to access appropriate audit evidence on the financial expenditure associated with the FFG Upgrade Project, and the Project's approved Equipment Acquisition Strategy.
The objective of the audit was to examine Defence's management of leases that have resulted from property sale and leaseback transactions. Leases subject to review were for a period of ten or more years and included the following six properties: the Defence Plazas in Sydney and Melbourne; the Hydrographic Office Wollongong; DNSDC Moorebank; Campbell Park Offices in Canberra; and ADC Weston Creek in Canberra. The audit examined the process for identifying the properties for sale and leaseback and the sale approval process. The audit sought to determine the basis on which the properties were proposed for sale and leaseback and the financial impact for the Government. The audit also reviewed the lease terms and conditions to determine whether they protect the Government's interests, and examined Defence's management of commitments arising from the leases.
The objective of the audit was to form an opinion about DVA's management of the current and future demand for VHC services. To form an opinion, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) examined whether DVA:effectively planned the distribution of VHC resources; distributed VHC resources according to its planning; and monitored and evaluated how effectively it managed the demand for VHC services. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO interviewed DVA personnel, examined DVA documents, interviewed personnel at a selection of Agencies, Service Providers and stakeholders, and reviewed relevant literature.
The objective of the audit was to provide an independent assurance of the effectiveness of Defence's management of the acquisition, and future provision of the Armidale Class Patrol Boats capability, relating to the in-service support contract, provision of infrastructure, and crewing sustainability.
The audit examined the relationship between the strategic guidance and capabilities provided by Army, through analysis of the Army capability management and reporting framework. The objectives of the audit were to: Assess Army capability management and reporting processes; determine whether these processes efficiently and effectively manage resources to provide Army capability; and accurately indicate the capability provided by Army.
This audit is the first time that the ANAO has looked at superannuation payments to independent contractors. The audit examined whether Commonwealth organisations were identifying contracts that were wholly or principally for the labour of the contractor and meeting statutory superannuation obligations under the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988.
This audit focused on the implementation of the Revised Government Foreign Exchange Risk Management Policy. Overall, the audit found the implementation of the Revised Policy with all CAC Act entities was not complete and important elements of the Revised Policy have not been adequately implemented. ANAO made five recommendations aimed at improving the compliance of GGS entities with the revised Policy, central agency consideration of entities' requests for exemption and enhancing the reporting made to Government. Finance and other entities agreed with all the recommendations.
The audit examined the range of support made available to ADF personnel making the transition from military to civilian life, the extent to which the assistance is utilised, the cost to Defence of such assistance and the relevant responsibilities of those who deliver assistance.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether selected Commonwealth organisations had utilised better practice principles when establishing the role, and managing the use of their internal audit groups. In order to evaluate internal audit, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) first considered the status and accountabilities of internal audit within the overall governance framework of the organisations audited, in particular its accountabilities to the audit committee.
The audit examined the process of identifying the ADC Weston Creek property for sale and leaseback and the management of the sale process. The objective of the performance audit was to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the sale process by Defence, including assessing whether the sale and long term leaseback arrangements adequately protect the Commonwealth's interests.
This audit followed up the ANAO's 1997 performance audit report on ADF health services (Audit Report No.34 1996-97 Australian Defence Force Health Services), which focused on the delivery of non-operational health services to entitled members. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess Defence's implementation of recommendations made in the original audit report and their effectiveness in improving ADF health services.
The audit was conducted as a joint financial statement and performance audit of DVA's Information Technology (IT) systems. The objective of the financial statement component of the audit was to express an opinion on whether DVA could rely on its IT systems to support production of a reliable set of financial information for the financial statements. The objective of the performance audit component was to determine whether DVA's IT systems outputs adequately met quality and service delivery targets.
Causes and Consequences of Personnel Postings in the Australian Defence Force The audit arose from a Defence Efficiency Review (1997) recommendation that Defence could make savings on the large volume of postings it made every year. The audit examined the posting process and sought to provide assurance that Defence had identified and examined salient postings issues and was addressing them effectively.
The objective of the audit was to form an opinion on ATSIC's management of the Municipal Services component of the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP). The audit examined how effectively ATSIC specifies and implements its role, the adequacy with which it identifies relative needs for support from the program among Indigenous communities, and how it leverages improved outcomes from other potential funding sources.
The objective of the ANAO audit was to identify possible areas for improvement in the Australian Defence Force's management of its Reserve forces. The audit focused on major aspects of the Reserves including roles and tasks, force structure, capability, training, individual readiness, equipment, facilities, recruitment, retention, conditions of service and administration. The audit covered the Australian Naval Reserve, the Australian Army Reserve and the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve. However, due to its size and cost, the Army Reserve was a major focus of the audit activity.
The audit reviewed the Defence Department's management of the Defence Cooperation (DC) Program, through which Australia interacts with and provides assistance to security forces in South East Asia and the South Pacific. The primary aim of the program is to support Australia's defence relationships. Activities conducted through the program include training, study visits, personnel exchanges and combined exercises with elements of the various regional armed forces. The Pacific Patrol Boat Project is part of the program. The objectives of the audit were to:
1) consider how Defence assesses performance in meeting DC objectives;
2) review Defence's development of DC objectives; and
3) identify areas for improvement in managing DC resources.
The audit examined the review of decisions on veterans' disability compensation. The audit objective was to examine the management of internal review by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) and external review by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) of decisions by the Repatriation Commission on veterans' claims for disability compensation.
The Defence Estate comprises the land, buildings and other facilities that Defence uses across Australia. These facilities are vital to achieving the Defence mission - to prevent or defeat the use of armed force against Australia and its interests. The Estate has a gross replacement value of $14.8 billion. Defence Estate Organisation's (DEO's) Facilities Operations (FACOPS) Program delivers general maintenance and minor new works to Defence facilities on a regional basis across the country. DEO's Estate Operations and Planning Branch and its nine Regional Estate Centres are responsible for the FACOPS Program. Resources available for the Program have been reduced in recent years. The total DEO budget for 2000-01, which includes funds for capital works, facilities operations and property management, is $2.6 billion. Of this total, the FACOPS Program has a cash allocation of $213 million and an additional $15.6 million for employee expenses associated with the Program's 283 staff. The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of selected Defence facilities operations, including tendering and contracting, with a view to adding value with practical recommendations for enhancing operations.
The objective of this audit was to establish whether Defence has developed sound fraud control arrangements that are consistent with better practice and fulfil its responsibilities for the protection of public property, revenue, expenditure, and rights and privileges from fraudulent exploitation.
The audit reviewed Defence's higher-level management of its knowledge system equipment acquisition projects. These amount to $8.5b. The focus of the audit was on the opportunities for Defence to adopt a much more coherent and integrated approach to knowledge systems management prospectively rather than on emphasising current system compatibility issues.
The audit reviewed the Amphibious Transport Ship Project, involving the acquisition and modification of two second-hand US Navy ships . The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Defence's management of the project, focusing on the capability development process, costs and schedule issues, contract issues, the management of project risks and project review processes.
This audit is a follow-up to ANAO Audit Report No.31 1995-96 Environmental Management of Commonwealth Land: Site Contamination and Pollution Prevention (‘the original audit'). The objectives of the follow-up audit were to determine: the extent to which Defence has implemented the agreed recommendations contained in the original audit (relating to its environmental management and the management of unexploded ordnance (UXO) on non-Commonwealth land) and; the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations in improving the environmental management of Commonwealth land.