A performance audit of the management of the Detention Centre Contracts was listed in the 2003-04 Audit Work Program as a potential audit. The audit work program proposed that the audit would be conducted in two parts. The first part would focus on DIMIA's management of the detention centre contracts with the then detention service provider, GEO Australia. The second part would concentrate on how well any lessons learned from the first contract, were translated into improvements with the new contract. The original objective of this second ANAO audit was to assess DIMIA's management of detention services through the Contract, including the tender process, transition period and implementation of lessons learned from the previous contract.

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 audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs management of complaints and other feedback to support service delivery. The audit criteria were that DVA has:

• a well-designed framework for managing complaints and other feedback;
• effective processes and practices to manage complaints; and
• appropriately analysed complaints to inform service delivery.

Given the significant expenditure associated with the Super Seasprites, and the problems that the Project had encountered over some time, the ANAO had commenced this performance audit prior to the Government's decision to cancel the Project. The focus of the audit was on Defence's and DMO's administration of the Project. In light of the Government's decision to cancel the Project, the objective of the audit was revised to place greater emphasis on those issues that resulted in the failure of the Project to provide the required capability, and highlighting project management lessons for major Defence acquisitions going forward.Accordingly the audit objective was to:

• identify those factors that contributed to the on-going poor performance of the Project;
• outline measures taken by Defence and DMO in seeking to overcome issues encountered by the Project, and key lessons arising from this project for the benefit of major acquisitions projects generally; and
• determine the capability and cost implications of a project that failed to deliver to expectations.

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:

• Australian Customs Service (Customs);
• Commonwealth Superannuation Administration (ComSuper);
• 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 objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and the effectiveness of DEWR's administrative oversight for the WfD programme. The components of administration examined included whether:

• the operation of the WfD programme was guided by sound business planning including risk assessment;
• DEWR effectively and efficiently managed, monitored and reported the performance of CWCs in meeting contractual obligations;
• adequate support was provided to DEWR contract managers and account managers to assist in the delivery of WfD outcomes;
• there was evaluation of the performance of CWCs in delivering WfD objectives on behalf of the department;
• DEWR measures the effectiveness of WfD against programme objectives; and
• DEWR had implemented agreed recommendations from the previous WfD audit, where current and relevant.

The objective of the audit was to assess the Australian Federal Police's (AFP’s) management of policing services at Australian international airports. In order to form a conclusion against this audit objective, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) examined if:

• the transition to the 'All In' model of policing at airports (Project Macer) had been delivered effectively;
• appropriate processes are in place for managing risk and operational planning;
• effective stakeholder engagement, relationship management and information sharing arrangements are in place;
• facilities at the airports are adequate and appropriate; and
• appropriate mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness of policing at airports have been developed and implemented.

The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to Parliament concerning the adequacy of Defence preparedness management systems and to identify possible areas for improvement. The audit focused on the systems and processes that Defence uses to manage preparedness. We did not review the preparedness levels of specific capabilities, nor did we cover capital acquisition processes. The audit included coverage of: - preparedness systems architecture; - control and direction of preparedness; - coordination among contributors to preparedness; and - performance management and preparedness.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the WHM programme is administered effectively and in accordance with relevant laws and policies. In particular, the ANAO focused on four key areas: the implementation of eWHM visa; authority for the WHM programme; decision-making for WHM visas; and programme performance information. A feature of the audit was the computer-aided scrutiny of over 300 000 visa application records to test DIMA's decision-making processes.

The objective of this audit was to determine whether Health adequately assessed the State and Territory Governments' compliance with their obligations under the terms of the AHCAs. In conducting the audit, ANAO addressed the following criteria:

• if Health assessed whether the States and Territories were adhering to the AHCAs clause 6 principles that all eligible persons had equitable access to free public health and emergency services on the basis of clinical need within an appropriate period;
• if Health assessed whether the States and Territories were increasing their own source funding at the rate specified in the AHCAs; and
• if Health assessed whether the States and Territories were meeting the performance reporting requirements set out in the AHCAs.