The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence effectively managed the procurement process for services related to the recruitment of personnel to the ADF and the introduction of a new service provider.

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the Institute of Internal Auditors, Annual Directors' Forum, Canberra

The objectives of the audit were to examine and evaluate the efficiency, economy and administrative effectiveness of the non-judicial activities of the Family Court of Australia. A major aim of the audit was to identify administrative better practices that could be promulgated throughout the Court. The criteria for the audit address the following issues: corporate planning; performance measurement; organisational structure; human resource management; human resource development; management information and reporting systems; and operational processes and procedures.

Mr Ian McPhee - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the CPA Australia

The audit reviewed the coordination of export development and promotion activities across Commonwealth agencies. The objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which export development and promotion activities are managed in a coordinated manner to maximise their effectiveness and transparency, and to minimise duplication. Particular attention was given to:

• Austrade's role in coordinating and advising on the development of export programs across Commonwealth agencies; and
• the design, delivery and evaluation of programs consistent with the Mortimer review design criteria agreed by Government.

The overall objective of the audit was to assess AusAID's management of commercial contracts to deliver Australia's overseas aid program. To this end, the audit examined whether:

• there are sound supporting structures for contract management;
• AusAid effectively manages risks;
• contracts clearly define deliverables;
• services are delivered and payments are made in accordance with the contract;
• there are appropriate arrangements to manage contractor performance;
• strategies appropriately assess and allocate risk between AusAid and contractors; and
• contracts deliver the desired aid outcomes.

The audit objective was to assess the adequacy of the Commonwealth's administration of three key components of the Agriculture - Advancing Australia package: the FarmBis II program, the Farm Help program and the Farm Management Deposits scheme. Broadly, the audit examined the areas of strategic management, managing compliance, program promotion, performance monitoring and evaluation, and performance results.

The audit reviewed the sales of DASFLEET, Works Australia and DAS Interiors Australia. Separate audit reports have been produced for each of the sales. This report focuses on the management of the overall sale processes for all business units.

The objective of the audit was to report to Parliament on the progress Defence has made since June 2001 in implementing appropriate strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel. The audit focused on management of specialist information system skills and did not examine skills needed by users of information systems, although the latter is of obvious importance for overall performance. In June 2001, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), after reviewing the ANAO's Audit Report No. 11 Knowledge System Equipment Acquisition Projects in Defence, commented that its major concern about Defence's ability to develop a knowledge edge with adequate coherence, centred on Defence's ability to recruit, develop and retain skilled individuals needed in all parts of the DIE. The JCPAA recommended that the ANAO conduct an audit of Defence's strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel.

The objective of Phase Two of the audit was to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of operations of ATSIC Central, State and Regional Offices in relation to the administration of the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme. The ANAO established key criteria to assess progress against the implementation of the Phase One recommendations and further assess the efficiency and effectiveness of CDEP administration. The main areas examined were: planning, including reports of progress against plans and the development and use of performance information; monitoring, including client feedback and the review process at the Regional Office level; the implementation and effectiveness of management information systems in relation to CDEP; and the development and implementation of quality assuranced processes at State/Regional level.