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 extent to which DEEWR and FaHCSIA have effectively managed the planning and consultation phases for the IBF program and the IBHP program. The audit scope included consideration of the issues likely to affect the ongoing operation and sustainability of the facilities.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Aboriginal Hostels Limited; Northern Territory Department of Education and Training
The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DEEWR’s and FaHCSIA’s administration of the Australian Government’s responsibilities under Element 1 of the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Economic Participation (including the NT Jobs Package).
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s administration of EC measures and the implementation of the pilot of new drought reform measures.
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 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 objective of the audit was to assess how well agencies had implemented the CPGs and relevant FMA legislation when undertaking Direct Source procurement.
The audit examined whether selected agencies had developed a sound procurement framework; appropriately classified procurement methods when meeting external reporting requirements; implemented the CPGs and relevant legislation when Direct Sourcing; and established effective procurement monitoring and review arrangements.
The ANAO selected four FMA Act agencies to provide a cross-section of the 104 agencies that reported procurement activity in AusTender in 2008–09. The agencies selected for audit were:
the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA);
the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Innovation);
the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA); and
the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).
The ANAO examined a stratified random sample of 645 procurements valued at $10 000 and over, across the four agencies. More detailed testing was undertaken for the 285 Direct Source procurements in the sample.