Mr P.J. Barrett (AO) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the UN Results Based Management Seminar

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the property management function, including the management of leases, was being performed efficiently and was providing an effective level of support for the delivery of the organisation's services (outputs). The audit evaluated property management policies and practices across the following dimensions:

• planning and control;
• business processes and practices; and
• information and performance management.

Within each of these areas, a series of desirable proceses and controls (described as the evaluation criteria) were developed to assist in the assessment of each organisation's performance.

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the Senior Staff of the Board of Audit - Tokyo, Japan

The objective of the audit was to report to Parliament on the ATO's management of its performance reporting within the outcomes and outputs framework and to identify potential areas for improvement in specifying, measuring, administering and reporting under that framework.

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 objectives were to report on the efficiency and effectiveness of selected agencies' management of telecommunications services. The specific purpose was to:

• identify the potential for more effective management of telecommunications services;
• consider the appropriateness of Commonwealth agencies' management of telecommunications services to take advantage of technological opportunities; and
• identify the elements of sound administration in the management of telecommunications services.

The audit criteria addressed agencies' performance against benchmarks of sound administrative practice in relation to procurement; planning; business process re-engineering; financial management; and performance management. The audit focussed primarily on telecommunications services, as distinct from capital items and equipment.

The audit objective was to report on the administration of the Australia Network tender process and to identify lessons learned from the conduct of the process to inform future procurement activities.

The objective of this audit was to assess DIMIA's management of the tender, evaluation and contract negotiation processes for the Detention Services Contract. Specifically, the audit considered DIMIA's processes for determining value for money based on the department's: evaluation of the request for tender, including the announcement of the preferred tenderer; negotiations with the successful and unsuccessful tenderers; and management of liability, indemnity and insurance.

The audit assessed whether Centrelink has effective Business Continuity Management and/or associated risk management procedures and plans in place that: minimise the likelihood of a significant business outage; and in the event of such an outage, minimise disruption of critical services to customers. The audit also assessed whether Centrelink services satisfy special community demands in times of emergency.

The objective of this benchmarking study of the finance function was to obtain and report on over time, quantitative and qualitative data, relating to finance function activities as they operate in Commonwealth organisations. Over the three year period of the study, the majority of participating Commonwealth organisations have shown an improvement in their quantitative and/or qualitative benchmark results across the range of finance function activities. The Report does not provide specific reasons for differences in performance. However, it does provide guidance as to some of the better practices that participating organisations, and the wider public sector, may wish to adopt, or adapt in order to achieve improved performance in the activities of the finance function.