Allegations were made to the Senate Economics References Committee that the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Customs Service (Customs) had failed to pursue several cases of detected sales tax fraud. The Committee believed that this alleged failure may have stemmed from coordination problems between the two agencies. The Committee requested the Auditor-General to investigate this matter and report his findings to the Parliament.

The audit assessed FaHCSIA's management of AACAP and how the department monitors the contribution the program is making to the improvement of primary and environmental health, and living conditions, in remote Indigenous communities.

The audit examined program delivery under the 2006–2009 MoU, as well as the planning for the 2010 project under the variation to the 2006–2009 MoU. As part of the audit the ANAO considered:

• program strategy and implementation including the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders, community selection and scope of works (Chapter 2);
• the financial management of the program and the changing role of the Contracted Program Manager (Chapter 3); and
• performance measures, including FaHCSIA's performance reporting framework, and approach to monitoring and reporting performance against the stated program objectives (Chapter 4).

The audit focused on AACAP in so far as it relates to Indigenous community outcomes. It did not consider the program from the perspective of the Australian Defence Force capability building.

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

The objective of the audit was to review the efficiency, economy and administrative effectiveness of departmental activities leading to the letting of the contract with SPCL and its subsequent administration. This included, among other things, an examination of action taken to protect the Commonwealth's interests and the adequacy of relevant departmental guidelines and processes. A primary aim of the audit was to identify the facts of the particular case, including any administrative inadequacies that led to unnecessary financial exposure for the Commonwealth and less than satisfactory outcomes. In particular, the audit aimed to identify elements of better practice that could be followed under similar circumstances or programs in the future.

The audit objectives were to assess the appropriateness of the use of confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracts and whether selected agencies had compiled Internet listings of contracts, as required by the Senate Order and agreed to by the Government.

The audit focussed on the systems and processes OGTR has established for both receiving and assessing applications under the Act, and also for ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements through monitoring and inspection. The audit objective was to form an opinion on the discharge by OGTR of selected functions entrusted to it under the Act. The audit assessed the practices of OGTR against the following principal criteria: Assessment of applications under the Act: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for the management and assessment of applications under the Act. Ensuring compliance—monitoring, inspection and enforcement activities: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Act. Performance management: Whether OGTR manages selected aspects of its work efficiently and effectively. The audit did not seek to form an opinion on the appropriateness of the chosen structure of the regime for regulating gene technology or the merit of the scientific judgments involved. The audit methodology included discussions with representatives from agencies that co-ordinate aspects of the co-operative regulatory regime for gene technology across Australian jurisdictions, with various other stakeholders and users of the regime, as well as with officers of OGTR, along with examination of OGTR documents and files.

This audit examined the management of contracts for business support processes in eight Commonwealth organisations-six operating under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, and two operating under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The objectives of this audit were to:

• provide assurance on the effectiveness of the management of contracted business support processes in selected organisations; and
• identify and disseminate better practices in related contract management.

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 objectives in auditing the sale were to assess the extent to which the Government's sale objectives were achieved; review the efficiency of the management of the sale process; assess whether the sale arrangements adequately protected the Commonwealth's interests, including minimising ongoing Commonwealth risk; and identify principles of sound administrative practice to facilitate improved arrangements for future trade sales, particularly the later phases of airport sales.

Fedlink was to comprise two elements: a high capacity telecommunications infrastructure (phase 1) and information technology applications which support Internet and Intranet communication, and transactions in a secure environment (phase 2) [which never went ahead]. OGIT sought the services of the ANAO to provide an opinion on the probity of the methodology and procedures applied in the evaluation process for phase 1. Therefore the objectives of this audit were to assist OGIT in the timely identification of any deficiencies in the evaluation of responses from suppliers and options for addressing the deficiencies.