The objective of the audit was to examine the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of the scheme in light of rapidly increasing expenditure and a history of administrative difficulties and deficiencies.

The ANAO conducted a project audit of Competitive Employment, Training and Placement services, part of the Disability Services Program administered by the then Department of Human Services and Health, primarily because of parliamentary concerns relating to these services. Under the Administrative Arrangements Order of 11 March 1996, the Disability Services Program is now administered by the Department of Health and Family Services.

The Defence Estate comprises the land, buildings and other facilities that Defence uses across Australia. These facilities are vital to achieving the Defence mission - to prevent or defeat the use of armed force against Australia and its interests. The Estate has a gross replacement value of $14.8 billion. Defence Estate Organisation's (DEO's) Facilities Operations (FACOPS) Program delivers general maintenance and minor new works to Defence facilities on a regional basis across the country. DEO's Estate Operations and Planning Branch and its nine Regional Estate Centres are responsible for the FACOPS Program. Resources available for the Program have been reduced in recent years. The total DEO budget for 2000-01, which includes funds for capital works, facilities operations and property management, is $2.6 billion. Of this total, the FACOPS Program has a cash allocation of $213 million and an additional $15.6 million for employee expenses associated with the Program's 283 staff. The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of selected Defence facilities operations, including tendering and contracting, with a view to adding value with practical recommendations for enhancing operations.

Members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have informal and formal complaint mechanisms available to them to address grievances. Initially, members are advised to seek resolution of their complaint at the lowest possible level, through the normal command channels and administrative arrangements. A member who is not satisfied that a complaint has been resolved in this manner may use the Redress of Grievance (ROG) system to submit a formal complaint to the commanding officer of the member's unit. The objective of this audit was to ascertain whether the ROG system could be refined to improve the efficiency and timeliness of processing of complaints while preserving the equity and transparency the current system provides.The Redress of Grievance system is clearly time-consuming and resource intensive. Some grievances have taken as long as four years to resolve. Some could be resolved by administrative means rather than through recourse to grievance processes. The system contains various inefficiencies that detract from its cost-effectiveness from the viewpoint of the ADF and individual members. In addition many members are unaware of the system or do not have a high level of confidence in its effectiveness.

This audit reviewed:

• the methods used by the Department of Social Security (DSS) to determine and allocate staff numbers to Regional Offices. It sought to ascertain whether the allocations resulting from these methods met the demands placed on Regional Offices and the scope for improvement to these methods; and
• the scope for improvements to the benefit delivery process and other aspects of Regional Office operations that could lead to significant productivity gains or client service benefits.

The ANAO's objectives in auditing the sale were to:

• review the extent to which the Government's objectives for the sale were achieved;
• review the management of the sale process; and
• to assess ongoing Commonwealth exposures and responsibilities.

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Department of Finance and Administration's Learning Centre Lecture Series

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, address presented at the Australian National University

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Defence and Strategic Studies Course, Australian Defence College, Canberra

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Secretaries' Forum

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at a Seminar on 'Financial Management and Electronic Government' Kuala Lumpur

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Attorney-General's Luncheon

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the 1999 Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations Biennial Risk Management Conference, Brisbane

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the PA Congress 1997:'CPAs for Today and Tomorrow', Adelaide

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the Lunchtime Seminar Series for Senior Officers, Sydney, NSW

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Association of Risk and Insurance Managers of Australasia - South Australia Chapter

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the 18th Commonwealth Auditors-General Conference, Malaysia

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the CPA South Australia Annual Congress 2001, 'Riding the Next Wave'

Mr Ian McPhee, PSM - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the Senate Occasional Lecture, Parliament House Canberra

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented t the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants Annual Research Lecture - Canberra

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Challenges and Opportunities Seminar, Conducted by the Department of Finance, Canberra

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

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

Address by Richard Rundle, Executive Director, Business Assurance Services, at the Security in Government 2001 Conference

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the IPAA ACT Division, Half day seminar

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Global Working Group Meeting, Washington

The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Department of Health and Family Services had managed its coordinating role and implemented its responsibilities under the National Rural Health Strategy efficiently and effectively.

The Senate Order of 20 June 2001, required all FMA agencies to list contracts over $100 000 on the Internet. FMA agencies were to indicate, amongst other things, whether the contracts contained provisions requiring the parties to maintain confidentiality of any of its provisions or whether any provisions of the contract were regarded by the parties as confidential. The Senate Order also requested the ANAO to conduct an examination of a number of such contracts, and indicate whether any inappropriate use of confidentiality provisions was detected in that examination. The Government agreed that agencies would comply with the spirit of the Order because it was committed to transparency of Commonwealth contracts. The Government also indicated that agencies' compliance with the Order would be progressive as agencies refine arrangements and processes to meet the requirements

The audit reviewed the policy advising functions of the Departments of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and Family and Community Services. The objective of the audit was to determine whether departmental quality management systems for policy advising were appropriate and the advice provided met expected standards for policy outputs.

The examined the $1 billion Federation Fund program, which was established by the Government to mark the Centenary of Federation. The objectives of the examination were to assess the:

• extent to which the administration of the FCHP program complied with better practice in the assessment of applications, especially in relation to the transparency and rigour of the decision-making process;
• equity of the geographic spread of grants to States and electorates; and
• process for the announcement of the results of grant applications.