Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the House of Representatives Occasional Seminar Series

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

Mr P.J. Barrett (AO) - Auditor-General for Australia, an Occasional Paper

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented an Occasional Paper

The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess how well the ATO has implemented the recommendations of Audit Report No.3 of 2001-2002, The Australian Taxation Ofiice's Administration of Taxation Rulings. As part of the audit we also considered the ATO's progress in addressing the JCPAA's suggestions resulting from its review of Report No.3 of 2001-2002.

The audit objective was to determine whether DIAC's biometrics program had appropriate:

• business review processes (including a business case);
• authorisation;
• business and IT governance arrangements; and
• IT project management and systems development arrangements.

The objective of this audit was to assess the extent to which the recommendations and major findings of the ANAO's 1999 audit of Commonwealth Debt Management have been addressed, and the impact of any changes.

This follow-up audit reviewed the operations of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) which is responsible for ensuring the sustainable use and efficient management of Commonwealth fisheries resources. The objective of this follow-up audit was to assess the extent to which AFMA addressed the issues that gave rise to the recommendations of ANAO Report No.32 1995-96, and the related recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee Report 1997, that were supported by the Government.

The follow-up audit focussed on the key issues identified in the recommendations and grouped these in the themes of:

• strategic and performance management;
• management of the advisory process;
• implementation of fisheries management methods;
• managing AFMA's environmental responsibilities as they relate to Commonwealth fisheries
  management;
• compliance, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities; and
• management of information and research.

The previous audit made ten recommendations to improve Centrelink's review and appeals system. Centrelink agreed to all recommendations. The objective of this follow-up audit was to review Centrelink's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.35, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System 2004-05.

The objective of the follow-up audit was to report on the action taken by the Australian Customs Service to address the recommendations of the 1996 Audit Report. The audit also reviewed key areas of the Passenger Movement Charge administration identified in the 1996 audit, including the appropriateness of formal arrangements between the ACS and Regular Public Transport airlines and assessed the proposed arrangements being developed by the ACS. The arrangements with RPT airlines were a particular focus in the follow-up report (as they were in the 1996 Audit Report), because of the significance of that category of carrier in revenue terms

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Scheme is being administered effectively by the department. The ANAO focussed on Program Year 1 of the Scheme, 2005–06, and examined DIISR's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of entities to receive grants;
• assessing entities' claims for eligible expenditure;
• adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme when calculating and paying claims, and managing any debts that arise;
• and evaluating and reporting on whether the statutory objective of the Scheme is being met.

The audit did not examine the other components of the 2005–2015 industry assistance package; nor did it examine any of the programs delivered under the previous assistance package (2000–2005).

The audit is a follow-up of ANAO Audit Report No.33 of 1997-98, which assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commonwealth's management of the Great Barrier Reef and made seven recommendations for improvement. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess the extent to which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which is responsible for advising the Commonwealth on the care and developement of the Marine Park, has implemented the recommendations of the earlier audit.

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.

The audit is a follow-up to Audit Report 12, 1995-96 Risk Management by Commonwealth Consumer Product Safety Regulators. The objectives of this follow-up audit were to determine the extent to which ANZFA had implemented the agreed recommendations contained in the 1995 Audit Report, and to determine the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations in improving food safety regulation.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Customs and Border Protection's performance in managing and coordinating enforcement operations against illegal foreign fishing in Australia's northern waters. The audit focused on Customs and Border Protection's role within the whole of government policy coordination framework; the effectiveness of its intelligence support for operational planning and policy and strategy development; its performance in planning, prioritising and administering effective enforcement operations; and its performance in measuring and reporting on the effectiveness of the program.

This audit followed up the ANAO's 1999 performance audit report on the Commonwealth's planning and response mechanisms to deal with exotic and new endemic pest and emergencies in the animal and plant sectors (Audit Report No 9 1999-2000 Managing Pest and Disease Emergencies). The previous audit made nine recommendations to improve planning and response strategies for emergencies; better coordination; diagnostic support; and appropriate monitoring and surveillance. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess AFFA's implementation of the recommendations, and whether implementation of these recommendations, or appropriate alternative measures, has improved the Commonwealth's planning and response strategies for pest and disease emergencies. The ANAO also observed and assessed relevant parts of the September 2002 foot and mouth disease simulation, Exercise Minotaur.

The audit objective was to assess Defence’s implementation of the five recommendations in  ANAO Report No.19 2014-15 Management of the Disposal of Specialist Military Equipment and the related recommendation in JCPAA  Report 449 Review of Auditor-General's Reports Nos. 1-23 (2014-15).

The objective of the audit was to form an opinion on the administrative effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of the Department of Health and Aged Care's delivery of health services to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.

The objective of the audit was to assess the Tax Office's strategies to address tax haven compliance risks. Particular emphasis was given to the Tax Office's:

• management arrangements relating to the administration of tax haven compliance risks;
• risk management framework for the identification and evaluation of compliance risks, specifically the activities of the Offshore Compliance Program (OCP); and
• risk mitigation strategies.

The audit did not include an examination of cases related to the promoters of tax haven related schemes nor the criminal use of tax havens.

The ANAO regards integrity as a core value of the organisation — critical in sustaining the confidence of Parliament, strengthening public trust in government and delivering quality audit products. Maintaining strong institutional integrity is critical to the operations and reputation of the ANAO.

The ANAO Integrity Framework provides an overarching structure to the integrity control system, supporting our institution’s integrity. The Framework serves to assist in ethical decision-making and risk, fraud and misconduct management.

Beyond its control system, the ANAO maintains an enduring focus on promoting integrity as a value that is embedded in our work and culture. The ANAO recognises that integrity demands quality not only in our products but also in the behaviours of our people.

The ANAO Integrity Advisor supports the effective and ongoing application of the Integrity Framework by providing advice to staff regarding integrity matters. The Integrity Advisor is responsible for increasing integrity awareness across the organisation and for reporting annually to the ANAO Executive Board of Management on actions taken under the Framework. The Auditor-General publishes the ANAO Integrity Report to provide increased transparency of the measures we undertake to maintain a high-integrity culture in the ANAO.

In 1999-2000, the ANAO conducted an audit in Centrelink to determine whether its planning, monitoring and costing arrangements provided a sound basis to underpin its delivery of quality, cost effective customer services. The report of that audit, Audit Report No. 43 1999-2000 Planning and Monitoring for Cost Effective Service Delivery, Staffing and Funding Arrangements, was tabled in Parliament in May 2000. The objective of this follow-up audit was to assess whether Centrelink had implemented a comprehensive costing system as a basis for planning productivity improvements and accounting for its expenditure of purchaser funds. The ANAO examined Centrelink's current costing system to determine if it reflected the design and implementation characteristics that were outlined in Audit Report No. 43.

The issues examined by the ANAO were considered on two levels. First, legal and ethical processes that focus on whether there are any impediments to the Government and public service implementing the CEIP in the way they have. The public interest issues turn largely on the question of whether the CEIP was for Government or party-political purposes. The other level on which these issues were considered is that of public accountability and the way in which decisions to spend public money are made. In turn, these issues raise questions about the relationship between, and authority of, the Government and Parliament. They may also involve consideration of what might be regarded as proper or responsible conduct by governments and the public service.

The ANAO assessed agencies' progress in implementing the seven recommendations of Audit Report No.47 of 1998-99, Energy Efficiency in Commonwealth Operations. The Objectives of the follow-up audit were to

(i) asses the extent to which selected Commonwealth agencies have implemented the recommendations of Report No. 47 of 1998-1999, taking account of any changed circumstances or new administrative issues identified as impacting upon implementation of these recommendations; and

(ii) offer continued assurance to the Parliament on the management of Commonwealth agencies' compliance with the Commonwealth energy efficiency requirements, and to identify areas of better practice in energy management by those agencies.

The objectives of this follow-up audit were to:

• examine the ATO's implementation of the ten recommendations in The Australian Taxation Office's Management of its Relationship with Tax Practitioners (Audit Report No.19, 2002–03), having regard to any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting implementation of those recommendations; and
• identify scope for improvement in the ATO's management of its relationship with tax practitioners.

Follow up audits are recognised as an important element of the accountability processes of Commonwealth administration. Parliament looks to the Auditor General to report, from time to time, on the extent to which Commonwealth agencies have implemented recommendations of previous audit reports. Follow up audits keep Parliament informed of progressive improvements and current challenges in areas of Commonwealth administration that have previously been subject to scrutiny through performance audits.

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management - Washington

This report summarises audit and other related activities of the Australian National Audit Office in the period January to June 2000.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Airservices’ contract management for the OneSKY program.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s administration of the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy. The ANAO examined whether the department had established effective:

• administrative and governance arrangements to support NAQS;
• processes for identifying biosecurity risks and conducting scientific activities to address identified risks;
• arrangements for managing the quarantine aspects of Torres Strait border movements; and
• public awareness activities that reflect identified biosecurity risks and support the program’s objectives.

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Third ACAG Conference, Canberra