Browse our range of reports and publications including performance and financial statement audit reports, assurance review reports, information reports and annual reports.
The objective of this audit was to assess key aspects of the establishment and administration of HIP by DEWHA as well as the transition of the program to DCCEE. All phases of the program were examined with particular emphasis for Phase 2 being given to:
- program design and implementation;
- registration and training of installers;
- payment of rebates; and
- the compliance strategy underpinning the program.
The focus of this audit is the IEP stream of the Jobs Fund. Separate performance audits are underway that are examining the establishment, implementation and administration of the separate components of the Local Jobs stream of the Jobs Fund.
The audit objective was to assess the extent to which DEEWR and FaHCSIA have effectively managed the planning and consultation phases for the IBF program and the IBHP program. The audit scope included consideration of the issues likely to affect the ongoing operation and sustainability of the facilities.
The objective of the audit was to examine the integrity of electronic records stored on the CSA's database—Cuba—and to report on the effectiveness of CSA's management of the data.
The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the BCM practices and procedures within the Tax Office in preparing for, or responding to, disruptions to ‘business as usual' operations.
The objective of the audit was to assess DAFF's implementation and administration of the three forest industry assistance programs under the TCFA. Particular emphasis was given to the:
- implementation of the programs and ongoing governance arrangements;
- promotion of the program and the development of program guidelines;
- assessment of applications and approval of funding; and
- management of funding agreements.
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Fixing Houses for Better Health program since 2005.
The audit reviewed the two elements of the program for which FaHCSIA is responsible: management of the service delivery arrangements and overall performance monitoring and reporting. Following the development of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which introduced new approaches to the delivery of Indigenous programs, FaHCSIA made changes to FHBH for the 2009–11 phase. The audit has focused on both the 2005–09 and the 2009–11 phases. This provided coverage of the program's normal operations as well enabling the audit to consider the modifications made to the program for the
2009–11 phase.
Against this background, the audit considered whether:
- program management arrangements had been established that were suitable for the size, nature and objectives of the FHBH program;
- service delivery arrangements were designed to support the achievement of the program's objectives and FaHCSIA's management of the program; and
- FaHCSIA used robust systems to monitor achievement of the program objectives.
The ANAO also considered whether there was any experience from the department's management of FHBH that could be broadly applied to FaHCSIA's management of the National Partnership Agreement.
On 2 November 2000, the Senate agreed to a resolution that the Auditor-General be requested to review all expenditures and entitlements accruing to Parliamentarians and Ministers in 1999-2000. The resolution requested that the Auditor-General consider a number of specific matters, and report by 30 June 2001. In the course of that audit, examination of issues relating to Parliamentarians' staff was deferred in order to give the Auditor-General a reasonable chance of reporting reasonably close to the Senate's requested reporting timeframe. ANAO Audit Report No.5 2001-02, Parliamentarians' Entitlements: 1999-2000, was tabled in the Parliament in August 2001. A proposed audit of the administration by Finance of the entitlements of staff engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) Act was included in the ANAO Audit Work Program for 2001-02. The objectives of this performance audit were to: review the effectiveness of the internal control structures in the Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) concerning the administration of entitlements for MOP(S) Act staff; review the effectiveness and efficiency of the procurement and support services Finance provides in relation to MOP(S) Act staff: and identify principles of sound administrative practices to facilitate improved administrative arrangements for the future. The audit covered Finance's administration of payments and services to MOP(S) Act staff during the period 1998-99 to 2001-02. Sub-section 15(c) of the Auditor General Act 1997 precludes an audit of persons who are engaged under the MOP(S) Act. Accordingly, the audit scope did not include examination of the responsibilities of MOP(S) Act staff.
The objective of the audit were to assess the extent to which agencies' performance management systems, strategies and plans are consistent with the strategic framework set out in the Managment Advisory Committee Report; provide assurance that the administration of performance managment is being implemented efficiently and effectively in accordance with better practice principles; provide assurance that performance linked remuneration reported in anual reports complies with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Requirements for Annual Reports; and quantify the cost of performance linked remuneration, both performance bonuses and performance linked advancements (salary increments), across the APS.
The objective of the audit was to assess whether selected regulatory agencies have cost recovery procedures and practices which comply with the Government's guidelines. To address this objective, the audit assessed the management of cost recovery against the following criteria:
- regulatory agencies have clear and consistent cost recovery procedures to identify their activities and costs, and set fees and levies;
- regulatory agencies have effectively implemented their cost recovery procedures;
- regulatory agencies regularly monitor and review their cost recovery activities; and
- regulatory agencies regularly report on their cost recovery.