In 2000, the ANAO tabled Audit Report No 49 1999-2000, Indigenous Land Corporation operations and performance. The 2000 audit made nine recommendations for improvement. This follow-up audit examined the Indigenous Land Corporation's implementation of the recommendations of the 2000 audit.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the administration of the National Black Spot Programme. It was undertaken in a manner similar to the audit of the Roads to Recovery Programme. Specifically, the audit approach involved:

• examination of DOTARS records and discussions with officers in DOTARS and four of the State road transport authorities responsible for administering the Programme;
• analysis of project monitoring, reporting and payment arrangements; and
• selecting a sample of 45 LGA areas across four States so that ANAO could examine projects delivered with Commonwealth funding.

The objective of the audit was to assess the department’s: effectiveness in administering school funding; and implementation of recommendations made in Auditor-General Report No.18 2017–18 Monitoring the Impact of Australian Government School Funding and JCPAA Report 476: Australian Government Funding.

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.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the governance of the Northern Land Council in fulfilling its responsibilities and obligations under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, Native Title Act 1993 and Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Given the importance of customer feedback to Centrelink's business, the ANAO considered it timely to conduct a series of performance audits relating to Centrelink's customer feedback systems, particularly in relation to its delivery of the services then provided on behalf of FaCS. The overarching objective of this series of ANAO performance audits of Centrelink's customer feedback systems was to assess whether Centrelink has effective processes and systems for gathering, measuring, reporting and responding effectively to customer feedback, including in relation to customer satisfaction with Centrelink services and processes.

The objective of the audit is to examine and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of AFP's administration and management of its overseas deployments. The audit specifically examines two deployments and focuses on strategic and operational planning and logistics. The audit examines a planned, long-term overseas deployment (as part of the Participating Police Force (PPF) within the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI)) and a crisis-driven deployment in response to a specific event (Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) assistance to Thailand following the Indian Ocean Tsunamis of 26 December 2004).

Given the importance of customer feedback to Centrelink's business, the ANAO considered it timely to conduct a series of performance audits relating to Centrelink's customer feedback systems, particularly in relation to its delivery of the services then provided on behalf of FaCS. The overarching objective of this series of ANAO performance audits of Centrelink's customer feedback systems was to assess whether Centrelink has effective processes and systems for gathering, measuring, reporting and responding effectively to customer feedback, including in relation to customer satisfaction with Centrelink services and processes.

Given the importance of customer feedback to Centrelink's business, the ANAO considered it timely to conduct a series of performance audits relating to Centrelink's customer feedback systems, particularly in relation to its delivery of the services then provided on behalf of FaCS. The overarching objective of this series of ANAO performance audits of Centrelink's customer feedback systems was to assess whether Centrelink has effective processes and systems for gathering, measuring, reporting and responding effectively to customer feedback, including in relation to customer satisfaction with Centrelink services and processes.

Given the importance of customer feedback to Centrelink's business, the ANAO considered it timely to conduct a series of performance audits relating to Centrelink's customer feedback systems, particularly in relation to its delivery of the services then provided on behalf of FaCS. The overarching objective of this series of ANAO performance audits of Centrelink's customer feedback systems was to assess whether Centrelink has effective processes and systems for gathering, measuring, reporting and responding effectively to customer feedback, including in relation to customer satisfaction with Centrelink services and processes.

The objective of the audit was to examine the extent to which the Department of Human Services (Human Services) has implemented the recommendations made by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in Auditor-General Report No. 37 of 2014–15 Management of Smart Centres’ Centrelink Telephone Services; as well as Human Services’ performance against call wait time and call blocking metrics.

Given the importance of customer feedback to Centrelink's business, the ANAO considered it timely to conduct a series of performance audits relating to Centrelink's customer feedback systems, particularly in relation to its delivery of the services then provided on behalf of FaCS. The overarching objective of this series of ANAO performance audits of Centrelink's customer feedback systems was to assess whether Centrelink has effective processes and systems for gathering, measuring, reporting and responding effectively to customer feedback, including in relation to customer satisfaction with Centrelink services and processes.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has zero tolerance for fraud and corruption. This means the ANAO will take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent, detect and respond to fraud and corruption. This strategy defines the ANAO’s principles of effective fraud and corruption control, key roles and responsibilities and how the ANAO expects to mitigate and manage risks. The strategy informs staff how they can report fraud and corruption.

The audit objectives were to examine the extent to which selected TSB2 and TSI Response programs: are achieving or had achieved their objectives; and had been administered effectively by DCITA according to better practice principles. To evaluate this aspect, the audit assessed DCITA's compliance with the better practice principles outlined in the Administration of Grants Better Practice Guide (May 2002) produced by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). There are 19 separate principles covered under the broad areas of: Planning for effective grant programs; Selecting projects; Managing and monitoring funding deeds; and Evaluating and reporting grant program performance.

The objective of the audit was to assess FSANZ's administration of its food standard functions, as specified in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act, 1991 (last amended 2007).
Particular emphasis was given to whether:

• FSANZ's performance management and reporting provided effective support and ensures accountability;
• FSANZ effectively administered its food standard development and variation function, including its stakeholder management; and
• FSANZ effectively monitored the implementation of its standards and coordinates relevant jurisdictions to address market failures.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of CSIRO’s development and administration of selected National Research Flagships. In assessing CSIRO’s performance, the ANAO examined whether:

• mechanisms were in place to develop and implement the Flagships, within the context of the broader CSIRO change program;
• governance arrangements for Flagships incorporated sound oversight, planning and reporting arrangements; and
• periodic review activities were used to assess and improve the operation of the Flagships.

The objectives of the audit were to:

• examine Customs' management of the CMR project; and
• determine whether the ICS and CCF met:
  • project and operational objectives; and
  • user capability and functionality requirements.

Particular emphasis was given to the following areas:

• the project management framework that supported the CMR project;
• implementation arrangements for the ICS; and
• ongoing operational arrangements.

After this audit commenced, Customs engaged Booz Allen Hamilton to undertake a separate review of the ICS. The purpose of that review was to provide Customs with a forward looking report on the lessons to be learned from the implementation of the ICS, its current status and the opportunities to enhance benefits for both Government and industry. The ANAO consulted closely with the Booz Allen Hamilton team and is supportive of the recommendations in their report, which was released in May 2006. The review made thirteen recommendations relating to the ongoing management and governance of the Cargo Management Re-engineering Program at both strategic and tactical levels.

The current audit has focussed on Stage 2 of the Scheme. Its objective was to assess whether ACIS is being administered effectively by DIISR and, as relevant, by Customs. In particular, the audit examined the department's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of participants to receive duty credits;
• calculating duty credits accurately and adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme;
• checking the integrity of participants' claims, which are self-assessed;
• accounting for the duty credits transferred to and used at Customs; and
• measuring and reporting on the performance of ACIS.

The audit also followed up on whether the ANAO's previous recommendations have been addressed.

This report has been prepared in response to a resolution of the Senate on 8 December 1994 which referred certain matters relating to the possible sale of ANL Ltd to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee. The resolution directed the Committee to consider a report from the Auditor-General and drew the Auditor-General's attention to a range of specific issues and questions.

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 objective of the audit was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in a sample of Australian Government contracts.

The objective of the audit was to examine the Tax Office's administration of the Lost Members Register. In particular, the audit examined the Tax Office's governance arrangements for the LMR; its strategies for managing data quality; and its provision of access to LMR data. The audit also considered how the Tax Office's administration of the LMR has responded to recommendations made in the ANAO's earlier review (Audit Report No.17, 2005–06 Administration of the Superannuation Lost Members Register), relevant changes in funding and legislation supporting the LMR, as well as the Change Program.

Consistent with the ANAO's practices, and in response to a request from AusAID, a follow-up audit was conducted in the period May to November 1998 to assess the extent of implementation of the recommendations of a 1996 audit into the Management of Funding to Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)and whether the implementation of recommendations has effectively improved the management of funding to NGOs. The ANAO examined AusAID's key funding accountability documentation, tested the revised accountability arrangements and consulted a number of key stakeholders, including NGO representatives.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DFAT's management of the overseas leased estate. In particular, the audit examined whether DFAT:

• has effective governance, reporting and funding arrangements in place to support the sound management and oversight of the overseas leased estate;
• effectively manages overseas leased chancery and residential property on a day-to-day basis; and
• manages relationships with landlords and attached agencies effectively and adequately consults with stakeholders.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of specific climate change programs by the departments of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and Resources, Energy and Tourism. In undertaking this audit, particular emphasis was given to the implementation of good administrative practice and the extent to which the program objectives were being met. The audit followed four lines of inquiry:

• development of program objectives and assessment of program risks;
• assessment and approval of competitive grant applications;
• assessment and approval of rebate applications; and
• measurement and reporting of program outcomes.

The objective of this audit was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in a sample of Australian Government contracts.

The audit examined the effectiveness of DEEWR's: administrative framework for the program; management of the application, assessment and funding processes; and monitoring of and reporting on the program's performance.

In order to form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO primarily conducted fieldwork and documentation reviews at DEEWR's central office. A stratified random sample (in order to provide for representation from states, territories and school sectors) of 74 applications from Rounds 1 and 2 was also selected for detailed examination. Through this sample, the ANAO sought to determine whether funding applications had been assessed in accordance with the established assessment criteria and that quality assurance mechanisms for the assessment process were effective.

The Commonwealth Parliament regulates Australian Government entities through the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act  — the PGPA Act. The Act establishes a system of governance, performance and accountability for resources managed by entities. This edition of audit insights looks at recent ANAO audit activity reviewing entities implementation of key components of the PGPA: risk management, corporate planning and performance statements.

The objectives of the audit were to: assess the extent to which the Government's sale objectives were achieved; assess the effectiveness of the management of the public share offer; and identify principles of sound administrative practice to facilitate improved administrative arrangements for future Commonwealth public share offers.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of grants made to the ARTC. The audit involved an examination of DOTARS' administration of the grant funding approved for, and paid to, the ARTC (in respect of both the grants paid for projects approved under legislation and the three special grants). It also involved consideration of the role of Finance and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) in advising on the special grant funding and (in respect of Finance) the payment and reporting arrangements for the grants. The audit was conducted under Section 18 of the Auditor-General Act 1997.