|
Footnotes
Chapter 10 Protection of Residential Aged Care Accommodation Bonds
[1]
The Committee decided to examine this report even though it was tabled
after the review period because of an ongoing interest in aged care issues and
because Department of Health and Ageing officials were already required to
provide evidence for Audit Report No. 40 2008-09.
[2]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 05 2009-10, unless specified otherwise.
[3]
Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), Submission No. 5.
[4]
DoHA, Submission No. 5.
[5]
Audit Report No. 05 2009-10, pp. 54-57.
[6]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, p. 3. All references to witnesses’ evidence comes
from the Committee’s hearing into this audit dated 25 November 2009, with page
numbers relating to the Proof Committee Hansard.
[7]
Audit Report No. 05 2009-10, p. 52.
[8]
Audit Report No. 05 2009-10, p. 53.
[9]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[10]
Audit Report No. 05, 2009-10, p. 50.
[11]
Audit Report No. 05, 2009-10, p. 50.
[12]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[13]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[14]
Audit Report No. 5, 2009-10, pp. 73-74.
[15]
Audit Report No. 5, 2009-10, p. 74.
[16]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[17]
Audit Report No. 5, 2009-10, pp. 76-77.
[18]
Audit Report No. 5, 2009-10, p. 78.
[19]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[20]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[21]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, p. 3.
[22]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, p. 3.
[23]
Ms Mary Murnane, DoHA, p. 3.
[24]
Mr Steven Lack, ANAO, p. 4; Audit Report No. 5 2009-10, pp. 89-90.
[25]
Ms Mary Murnane, DoHA, p. 3.
[26]
Ms Mary Murnane, DoHA, p. 4.
[27]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, p. 4.
[28]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, pp. 4-5.
[29]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, p. 5.
[30]
Audit Report No. 5, 2009-10, p. 88.
[31]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[32]
Audit Report No. 5, 2009-10, p. 95.
[33]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[34]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[35]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, p. 5.
[36]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, p. 5.
[37]
Mr Iain Scott, DoHA, pp. 5-6.
[38]
Audit Report No. 05 2009-10, pp. 65-67.
[39]
Ms Mary Murnane, DoHA, p. 6.
[40]
Audit Report No. 05 2009-10, p. 67.
[41]
Ms Mary Murnane, DoHA, pp. 6-7; Mr Matt Cahill, ANAO, p. 7.
[42]
Ms Mary Murnane, DoHA, pp. 7-8.
[43]
Audit Report No. 05 2008-09, pp. 24 and 40.
[44]
Ms Mary Murnane, DoHA, p. 8.
Chapter 2 Green Office Procurement and Sustainable Office Management
[1]
Leadership for Long Term Sustainability: The Roles of Government,
Business and the International Community, Address to the National Business
Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development, Parliament House, Canberra, 19 May
2008.
[2]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 25 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[3]
The ecological footprint is a tool used to measure ecological
sustainability and tracks past and present demands made by people on the
earth’s renewable natural resources. It tracks how much humanity as a whole
consumes and compares this amount to the resources nature can provide.
[4]
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Audit Report No. 25, 2008-09, pp.
16-18.
[5]
Dr Diana Wright, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
(DEWHA), p. 4. All references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s
hearing into this audit dated 24 June 2009, with page numbers relating to the
Proof Committee Hansard.
[6]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 4.
[7]
Mr Simon Lewis, Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance), p. 5.
[8]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 3.
[9]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 6.
[10]
Medicare Australia, Submission No. 4, p. 1
[11]
Mr David McMillen, Australian Taxation Office (ATO), p. 9.
[12]
Mr Simon Lewis, Finance, p. 9.
[13]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 10.
[14]
Mr Stephen Oxley, DEWHA, p. 9.
[15]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 10.
[16]
Ms Rona Mellor, Medicare, pp. 8-9.
[17]
Mr Stephen Oxley, DEWHA, p. 12.
[18]
Mr Simon Lewis, Finance, p. 12.
[19]
Mr Andrew Smith, Finance, p. 13.
[20]
Ms Rona Mellor, Medicare, p. 14.
[21]
Mr John Cheney, ATO, p. 14.
[22]
Mr John Cheney, ATO, p. 17.
[23]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 17.
[24]
Mr Simon Lewis, Finance, p. 17.
[25]
Ms Rona Mellor, Medicare, p. 17.
[26]
Audit Report No. 25, 2008-09, p 74.
[27]
Ms Rona Mellor, Medicare, p. 8-9.
[28]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 10-11.
[29]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 14.
[30]
Mr Simon Lewis, Finance, p. 15.
[31]
Ms Rona Mellor, Medicare, p. 16.
[32]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 11.
[33]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 12.
[34]
Dr Diana Wright, DEWHA, p. 13.
[35]
Environment Protection and Heritage Council, National Waste Report 2010,
http://www.ephc.gov.au/taxonomy/term/89,
accessed 26.05.2010.
[36]
Mr John Grant, Finance, p. 18.
Chapter 3 Management of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project
[1]
See the Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP, Minister for Defence (2008), Government
approves additional armoured personnel carriers, Media Release 148/2008, 28
October. In December 2008, the Government purchased the additional vehicles as
part of the ELF initiative, announced in 2006 at a total approximate cost of
$4.1 billion. ELF is intended to provide Army with a range of additional
equipment, among which are additional upgraded M113s.
[2]
Expressed in January 2009 prices. The estimate comprises the approved
budget of $648 million for the first 350 vehicles, and additional $241 million
for the 81 ELF vehicles, along with estimates of the additional costs of
preparing and extending the vehicle hulls prior to upgrade, and those of
Defence project staff.
[3]
Department of Defence (2008), Portfolio Budget Statements 2008-09,
p. 166.
[4]
The 81 additional ELF vehicles will allow these two mechanised battalions
(established under the Hardened and Networked Army initiative announced in 2005
at a cost of approximately $1.5 billion) to operate M113s exclusively rather
than mixed fleets of M113s and Bushmasters. See Department of Defence (2007), Australia’s
National Security: A Defence Update 2007, p. 51.
[5]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 27 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[6]
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Audit Report No. 27, 2008-09, p.
15.
[7]
Audit Report No. 27, 2008-09, pp. 14-16.
[8]
Department of Defence, Defence Procurement Policy Manual, Chapters
6 and 7.
[9]
Mr Colin Sharp, Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), p. 17. All
references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s hearing into this
audit dated 15 June 2009, with page numbers relating to the Proof Committee
Hansard.
[10]
Mr Colin Sharp, DMO, p. 17.
[11]
Mr Colin Sharp, DMO, p. 17.
[12]
Brig. Mal Rerden, Department of Defence (Defence), p. 20.
[13]
Brig. Mal Rerden, Defence, p. 20.
[14]
Brig. Mal Rerden, Defence, p. 21.
[15]
Mr Colin Sharp, DMO, p. 18.
[16]
Department of Defence, Submission No. 5, p. 1
[17]
Mr Kim Gillis, DMO, p. 18.
Chapter 4 Quality and Integrity of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Income Support Records
[1]
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Annual Report 2007-08, p. 20.
[2]
Department of Veterans’ Affairs (Defence Portfolio), Portfolio Budget
Statements 2007-08: Budget Related Paper No. 1.4B, May 2007, p. 49.
[3]
From time to time this trend in the workload may reverse in response to
legislated or policy changes but this does not affect the overall systemic
downwards trend. For example, in September 2007, a change to the taper rate of
the assets test generated around 4800 additional claims over a short period,
with workloads returning to the pre-1 July 2007 levels early in 2008-09.
[4]
The replacement of old systems hardware to reduce maintenance costs is
not limited to DVA. The recent independent Review of the Australian
Government’s Use of Information and Communication Technology by Sir Peter
Gershon, August 2008, illustrates the commonality of the issue both across
agencies and internationally. Recommendations include agencies: strengthening
governance around improving ICT capability; reducing expenditure on heritage
systems without impairing service delivery; and increasing internal ICT
capabilities.
[5]
Dummy data is a dummy variable that does not contain any useful data but
it does reserve space for a real variable.
[6]
The Department’s expenditure on Cúram application development over the
previous three financial years 2005-06 to 2007-08 is estimated to be $38
million.
[7]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 28 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[8]
This refers to clients who were receiving any kind of DVA payment at the
time of the data extraction.
[9]
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Audit Report No. 28 2008-09
Brochure, pp. 6-7.
[10]
DVA’s review of the ECP states: ‘compliance reviews are the most effective
and resource intensive review types as they update all aspects of a person’s
pension assessment. All other review types only update one or two assessment
items.’
[11]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, pp. 17-20.
[12]
Mr Barry Telford, Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), pp. 2-3. All
references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s hearing into this
audit dated 15 June 2009, with page numbers relating to the Proof Committee
Hansard.
[13]
Mr Barry Telford, DVA, p. 4.
[14]
Audit Report No. 28, 2008-09, p. 62.
[15]
Audit Report No. 28, 2008-09, p. 32.
[16]
Mr John Sadeik, DVA, p. 7.
[17]
Mr Barry Telford, DVA, p. 8.
[18]
Mr Barry Telford, DVA, p. 10.
[19]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, p. 81.
[20]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, p. 82.
[21]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, p. 88.
[22]
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Submission No 3, p. 7.
[23]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, Table 3.3, p. 76.
[24]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, Table 3.3, p. 76.
[25]
Mr Barry Telford, DVA, p. 2.
[26]
Mr Barry Telford, DVA, p. 12.
[27]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, Table 3.3, p. 76.
[28]
Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, pp. 50-51, 78, and 96.
[29]
Mr Barry Telford, DVA, p. 13.
[30]
Mr Barry Telford, DVA, pp. 2-3.
Chapter 5 Management of the Movement Alert List
[1]
Any changes in trend that may flow from the global financial crisis that
commenced in late 2008 are not reflected in the available data, which covers
the period to the end of the financial year 2007-08.
[2]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 35 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[3]
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Audit Report No. 28 2008-09, pp.
14-15.
[4]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 20.
[5]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 88.
[6]
Mr Correll, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), p. 4. All
references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s hearing into this
audit dated 16 November 2009, with page numbers relating to the Proof Committee
Hansard.
[7]
Mr Frew, DIAC, p. 11.
[8]
Mr Correll, DIAC, p. 4.
[9]
Mr Correll, DIAC, p. 4.
[10]
Mr Frew, DIAC, pp. 9, 10 and 12.
[11]
DIAC, Submission No. 10, p. 2.
[12]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 39.
[13]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[14]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[15]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[16]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, pp. 44-45.
[17]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 45.
[18]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[19]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, pp. 36 and 74.
[20]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 78.
[21]
Mr Correll, DIAC, p. 5; DIAC, Submission No. 10, p. 1.
[22]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 78.
[23]
Mr Frew, DIAC, p. 5; DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[24]
DIAC, Submission No. 10, p. 2.
[25]
DIAC, Submission No. 10, p. 3.
[26]
Mr Frew, DIAC, p. 6.
[27]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 128.
[28]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 131.
[29]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, pp. 135-36.
[30]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[31]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[32]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
[33]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 26; Mr Correll, DIAC,
p. 2.
[34]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 126.
[35]
Mr Correll, DIAC, p. 10.
[36]
Mr Frew, DIAC, p. 12.
[37]
Dr Rowlands, ANAO, p. 12.
[38]
DIAC, Submission No. 10, p. 3.
[39]
DIAC, Submission No. 10, pp. 3-4.
[40]
DIAC, Submission No. 10, p. 4.
[41]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, pp. 91-96.
[42]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 92.
[43]
Audit Report No. 35 2008-09, p. 96.
[44]
DIAC, Submission No. 10.
Chapter 6 Settlement Grants Program
[1]
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Annual Report 2007-08, Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra, 2008, p. 16
[2]
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Budget Statements 2008-09,
Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Budget Related Paper No. 1.12, Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra, 2008, p. 23.
[3]
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Budget Statements 2008-09,
Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Budget Related Paper No. 1.12, Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra, 2008, p. 39.
[4]
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, New Beginnings, Commonwealth
of Australia, 2008, p. 3.
[5]
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Report of the Review of
Settlement Services for Migrants and Humanitarian Entrants, Commonwealth of
Australia, May 2003.
[6]
Application Forms, Settlement Grants Program 2009-10.
[7]
Application Forms, Settlement Grants Program 2009-10.
[8]
Application Form, Settlement Grants Program 2009-10.
[9]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit Report
No. 36 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[10]
Audit Report No. 14 2007-08, Performance Audit of the Regional
Partnerships Programme, Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Audit
Report No. 39 2006-07, Distribution of Funding for Community Grant
Programmes, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs.
[11]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, pp. 13-14.
[12]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, pp. 11 and 73.
[13]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, p. 34.
[14]
Mr Fox, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), p. 14. All
references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s hearing into this
audit dated 16 November 2009, with page numbers relating to the Proof Committee
Hansard.
[15]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, p. 39.
[16]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[17]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[18]
Mr Fox, DIAC, p. 13.
[19]
Mr Fox, DIAC, p. 13.
[20]
Ms Jackson, ANAO, p. 15.
[21]
Mr Fox, DIAC, p. 15.
[22]
Mr Fox, DIAC, p. 16.
[23]
Mr Templeton, DIAC, p. 16.
[24]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, p. 40.
[25]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[26]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, p. 41.
[27]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[28]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, p. 60.
[29]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[30]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[31]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, pp. 88-89.
[32]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[33]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[34]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, pp. 88 and 91.
[35]
Audit Report No. 36 2008-09, pp. 88 and 90.
[36]
Mr Fox, DIAC, p. 17.
[37]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[38]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
[39]
DIAC, Submission No. 11.
Chapter 7 Planning and Allocating Aged Care Places and Capital Grants
[1]
While the Australian government provides the majority of the funding for
aged care, care recipients may also make a means-tested contribution towards
the cost of their care.
[2]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 40 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[3]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 89.
[4]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 89.
[5]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 89.
[6]
Mr Steven Lack, Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), p. 10. All
references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s hearing into this
audit dated 25 November 2009, with page numbers relating to the Proof Committee
Hansard.
[7]
Ms Anne Cronin, ANAO, p. 10.
[8]
ANAO Audit Report No. 38 2006-07, Administration of the Community Aged
Care Packages Program, Canberra, p. 74. The five groups identified under
the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Allocation Principles are: people from
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities, people from non-English
speaking backgrounds, people who live in rural or remote areas, people who are
financially or socially disadvantaged, and veterans.
[9]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 64.
[10]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 65.
[11]
Mr Peter Broadhead, Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), p. 11.
[12]
Mr Peter Broadhead, DoHA, p. 11.
[13]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, pp. 50 and 53.
[14]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 54.
[15]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[16]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, pp. 14-15 and 47-49.
[17]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 15.
[18]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 15.
[19]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[20]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 70.
[21]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 71.
[22]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, pp. 71-72.
[23]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 72.
[24]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
[25]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 91.
[26]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 91.
[27]
Audit Report No. 40 2008-09, p. 91.
[28]
DoHA, Submission No. 13.
Chapter 8 Construction of the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre
[1]
The project is now referred to as the Christmas Island Immigration
Detention Centre (CIIDC).
[2]
The department is now known as the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship (DIAC). It is referred to as DIMIA in relation to actions prior to
its renaming and as DIAC in relation to actions since that time.
[3]
The department is now known as the Department of Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG). As a result of
the November 2007 Federal election and subsequent changes to the Administrative
Arrangements Order, all relevant Territories staff and records associated with
the CIIDC project and related infrastructure services for which DOTARS had been
responsible were transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD). The
formal transfer occurred on 25 January 2008, with the physical relocation of
the Territories staff occurring in March 2008. Local government services are
provided on Christmas Island by the Shire of Christmas Island.
[4]
Termination took effect on 31 May 2003.
[5]
Prior to the change of Government following the 2007 Federal Election,
the department was known as the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA).
[6]
As opposed to the ‘fast-track’ process, involving parallel design and construction
for the purpose-built CIIDC proposed for the original project.
[7]
Specifically, DOTARS was provided with funding for an additional port
facility at Nui Nui (the main port is at Flying Fish Cove) and an associated
upgrade to the link road, upgrade of other roads (including the construction of
crab crossings), provision of housing for facility staff, construction of
sports facilities and the provision of water, communications and power to the
facility site.
[8]
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Manual of Procedures
for Departments and Agencies, March 2008, Edition 7.2, p. 38.
[9]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 43 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[10]
ANAO has outlined in other reports the importance of having a lead agency,
allied with associated risk management and whole-of-government performance
management arrangements (see ANAO Audit Report No. 50 2004-05, Drought
Assistance, Canberra, 2 June 2005, pp. 24-25). Similarly, in March 2005,
all Departmental Secretaries endorsed a guide entitled ‘Working Together’ that
emphasised the importance of a whole-of-government approach to inter-agency
work.
[11]
In this respect, ANAO has estimated a net delay effect on the project of
one month and additional costs of $6.4 million (a new pedestal was estimated to
cost $700 000 more than upgrading the existing pedestal).
[12]
The strategy recognised that:
[13]
The second budget increase (of $60 million) was necessary, in large part,
due to increased costs that resulted directly or indirectly from the change in
approach.
[14]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, pp. 13-15.
[15]
Mr Richard Scott-Murphy, Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance),
pp. 2-3. All references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s
hearing into this audit dated 18 November 2009, with page numbers relating to
the Proof Committee Hansard.
[16]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 43.
[17]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 43.
[18]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, pp. 45-46.
[19]
Mr Brian Boyd, ANAO, p. 3.
[20]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 10; Mr Brian Boyd, ANAO, p. 4.
[21]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 43.
[22]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 31.
[23]
Ms Jackie Wilson, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), p. 5.
[24]
Mr Richard Scott-Murphy, Finance, p. 5.
[25]
Mr Brian Boyd, ANAO, p. 6.
[26]
Mr Brian Boyd, ANAO, p. 6.
[27]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 22.
[28]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 23.
[29]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, pp. 23-24.
[30]
Mr Richard Scott-Murphy, Finance, p. 7.
[31]
Mr Richard Scott-Murphy, Finance, p. 8.
[32]
Ms Jackie Wilson, DIAC, pp. 8-9.
[33]
Ms Jackie Wilson, DIAC, p. 9.
[34]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, pp. 164-65.
[35]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 167.
[36]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 32.
[37]
‘Gateway involves short, intensive reviews at critical points in the
project’s lifecycle by a team of reviewers not associated with the project.
This provides an arm’s length assessment of the project against its specified
objectives, and an early identification of areas requiring corrective action.’
(Department of Finance and Deregulation, <http://www.finance.gov.au/gateway/index.html>,
accessed 14 January 2010.)
[38]
Mr Richard Scott-Murphy, Finance, p. 13.
[39]
Finance, Submission No. 9.
[40]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, pp. 77-80.
[41]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, pp. 82-86.
[42]
Audit Report No. 43 2008-09, p. 86.
[43]
Mr Richard Scott-Murphy, Finance, p. 15; Finance, Submission No. 9.
Chapter 9 Planning and Approval of Defence Major Capital Equipment Projects
[1]
Kinnaird, Malcolm (2003) Defence Procurement Review 2003, p. 20.
[2]
Mortimer, David (2008) Going to the next level: the report of the
Defence Procurement and Sustainment Review, p. xi.
[3]
Department of Defence (2009) The Response to the Report of the Defence
Procurement and Sustainment Review.
[4]
In this chapter, all references to ‘the audit’ are references to Audit
Report No. 48 2008-09, unless specified otherwise.
[5]
For an overview of each of these projects see pages 132-138 of the audit.
[6]
The Cabinet Handbook lays down the principles and conventions by
which the Cabinet system operates, and the procedures designed to ensure that
the Cabinet process fulfils its central purposes. The Cabinet Handbook
also contains the rules applying to submissions and memoranda related to
defence procurement. These rules are closely aligned to the Kinnaird Review’s
recommendations in respect of a strengthened two-pass approval system.
[7]
CDG is responsible for coordinating the preparation of first and second
pass proposals. However, for many projects some capability development work is
carried out by DMO, who provide specialist engineering, project management and
industry expertise.
[8]
Compliance with Defence Manuals is ‘mandatory and enforceable’, however
the DCDM is not an authorised Defence Manual, which are distinguishable from
other manuals within Defence as they are either signed by the Secretary of
Defence or the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF), or are endorsed through a
Defence Instruction signed by the Secretary and the CDF.
[9]
For the audit’s coverage of this issue, see pages 71-73.
[10]
Kinnaird, Malcolm (2003) Defence Procurement Review 2003, p. v.
[11]
Audit Report No. 48 2008-09, p. 17.
[12]
Mortimer, David (2008) Going to the next level: the report of the Defence
Procurement and Sustainment Review, pp. 13-16.
[13]
Department of Defence (2009) The Response to the Report of the Defence
Procurement and Sustainment Review, p. 20.
[14]
Dr Steve Gumley, Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), pp. 10-11. All
references to witnesses’ evidence comes from the Committee’s hearing into this
audit dated 28 October 2009, with page numbers relating to the Proof Committee
Hansard.
[15]
Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, p. 11.
[16]
Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, pp. 11-12; Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich,
Department of Defence (Defence), p. 12.
[17]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 13 and 15; Ms Frances Holbert,
ANAO, p. 14.
[18]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 13.
[19]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 12.
[20]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 19.
[21]
For the audit’s coverage of this issue, see pages 101-121. A breakdown of
the ANAO’s analysis of submissions’ conformance to the Cabinet Handbook is
in pages 103-115.
[22]
Five of the 20 projects did not follow the full documented path for NSC
approval, and were therefore not applicable to all of the ANAO’s criteria. This
was because of: government decisions (e.g. the acquisition of the Super Hornet
was made by government outside the two-pass approval process); the value of the
project was low enough to receive second pass approval from Ministers outside
of the NSC process; or NSC made a combined first and second pass decision at
the point Defence submitted for first-pass.
[23]
Kinnaird, Malcolm (2003) Defence Procurement Review 2003, p. 18.
[24]
For the audit’s coverage of this issue, see pages 116-117.
[25]
Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, pp. 2-4.
[26]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, pp. 4 and 7.
[27]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 8.
[28]
Mr Jim Smith, Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), p. 5.
[29]
Mr Jim Smith, DSTO, p. 5.
[30]
Mr Jim Smith, DSTO, p. 5.
[31]
DSTO(2004) Technical Risk Assessment of Australian Defence Projects
(DSTO-TR-1656); DSTO (2007) Technical Risk Assessment: a Practitioner’s
Guide (DSTO-GD-0493).
[32]
Despite the two DSTO publications, the Committee is puzzled as to why
Defence could not provide the ANAO with a definitive explanation of SRLs (p.
111 of the audit).
[33]
DSTO (2004) Technical Risk Assessment of Australian Defence Projects
(DSTO-TR-1656), pp. 4 and 7.
[34]
DSTO (2004) Technical Risk Assessment of Australian Defence Projects
(DSTO-TR-1656), p. 10.
[35]
DSTO (2007) Technical Risk Assessment: a Practitioner’s Guide
(DSTO-GD-0493), p. I.
[36]
Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, p. 7.
[37]
Audit Report No. 48 2008-09, p. 108.
[38]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 7.
[39]
Kinnaird, Malcolm (2003) Defence Procurement Review 2003, p. 18.
[40]
Department of Defence (2009) The Response to the Report of the Defence
Procurement and Sustainment Review, p. 26.
[41]
Department of Defence (2009) Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific
Century: Force 2030, p. 110.
[42]
For the audit’s coverage of this issue, see pages 117-119.
[43]
Net Personnel and Operating Costs (NPOC) are Defence’s estimates of the ‘change
in operating costs associated with replacing a capability (where applicable)
or, alternatively, reflect an update of the estimate contained in the [Defence
Capability Plan] for the operating cost of a new capability. They do not,
however, show decision-makers what the whole-of-life cost of the capability is
estimated to be’ (p. 117 of Audit Report No. 48 2008-09).
[44]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 6.
[45]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, pp. 6-7.
[46]
Kinnaird, Malcolm (2003) Defence Procurement Review 2003, p. 17.
[47]
Kinnaird, Malcolm (2003) Defence Procurement Review 2003, p. 17.
[48]
Department of Defence (2009) The Response to the Report of the Defence
Procurement and Sustainment Review, pp. 9-10.
[49]
For the audit’s coverage of this issue, see pages 62-67.
[50]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, pp. 8-9.
[51]
Finance, Submission No. 12.
[52]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 10; Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, p.
10.
[53]
For the audit’s coverage of this issue, see pages 81-87 and 99-100. Pages
88-99 of the audit provide a project-by-project breakdown of the results of the
ANAO’s analysis.
[54]
Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, pp. 14-15.
[55]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 15.
[56]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 16.
[57]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 15.
[58]
Audit Report No. 9 2008-09 Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects
Report 2007-08.
[59]
The C-17 Heavy Airlift project was listed in both reports, although it was
a project that received a combined first and second pass approval from
Government (see page 90 of the Performance Audit). The performance audit also
examined the project to purchase 24 new F/A18 Super Hornets, while the MPR
examined F/A 18 upgrade program.
[60]
The MPR report provides ‘limited assurance’ (a negative form of expression)
as opposed to the ‘reasonable assurance’ (positive expression) of a performance
audit. See the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board Standard on Assurance
Engagements ASAE 3000 Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of
Historical Financial Information, http://www.auasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/ASAE_3000_09-07-07.pdf.
[61]
Mr Peter White & Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, pp. 16-18.
[62]
Dr Steve Gumley, DMO, p. 18.
[63]
Ms Frances Holbert, ANAO, p. 18.
[64]
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Defence, p. 19.
|
