Please direct enquiries relating to requests for audit through our contact page.
The Auditor-General has responded to correspondence received from Senator Griff dated 11 April 2019, requesting that the Auditor-General provide as much detail as possible regarding the negotiation and awarding of contracts in the audit of the procurement of garrison support and welfare services.
18 April 2019
Senator Stirling Griff
Centre Alliance
Senator for South Australia
By email: Senator.Griff@aph.gov.au
Dear Senator Griff
Thank you for your correspondence received by my office on 11 April 2019 welcoming my decision to commence the audit Procurement of Garrison Support and Welfare Services and requesting the audit report provides details of: the process undertaken to negotiate and award the contracts; whether departmental policies were adhered to and sufficiently robust; and whether due diligence was carried out to assess value for money.
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) conducts audits of procurement activity against the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs) and the central principle of achieving value for money. The objective of this audit is to assess whether the Department of Home Affairs has appropriately managed the procurement of garrison support and welfare services for immigration processing centres. To form a conclusion against the objective, the ANAO will examine whether:
The high-level criteria go to the matters raised in your letter. A conclusion against this criteria, including details of the evidence base that informed the conclusion, will be provided in the audit report tabled in the Parliament.
Yours sincerely
Grant Hehir
Mr Grant Hehir
Auditor General
Australian National Audit Office
Via email: grant.hehir@anao.gov.au
Dear Auditor-General
I write regarding your audit into the procurement of garrison support and welfare services.
I welcome your decision to proceed with an examination of whether the Department of Home Affairs has appropriately managed the procurement of garrison support and welfare services for immigration processing centres.
These contracts represent a significant cost to taxpayers and the services that have been contracted do have an impact on the recipients, namely the asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru.
While questions around the contract awarded to the Paladin group of companies may have been the impetus for this audit, I commend your decision to broaden the scope of the audit to consider the procurement process and contractor performance of all contracted service providers in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.
Given the keen public interest, I would ask that in providing your report, you provide as much detail as possible regarding the process undertaken to negotiate and award the contracts, including whether departmental policy was consistently adhered to in all cases and whether this procurement policy is sufficiently robust. Also, given the reported profit-taking of some providers, whether sufficient due diligence was carried out to assess value for money.
I am happy to discuss this in person should you wish.
Best regards
Stirling Griff