The objective of this audit was to assess AQIS's management of export certification. In particular, it addressed the systems, procedures, processes and resources used to: register premises and license exporters; monitor compliance with arrangements; and manage non-compliance. The audit focussed on regulatory activities for assuring that Australian exports meet food safety and quarantine requirements. The methodology involved an examination of each of the seven AQIS export programmes.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of AGD's administration of grants provided under the Respondents Scheme. The audit considered the context within which the Respondents Scheme operates and focused on assessing the administration of the scheme including its financial management within AGD.

The audit objectives were to examine the extent to which selected TSB2 and TSI Response programs: are achieving or had achieved their objectives; and had been administered effectively by DCITA according to better practice principles. To evaluate this aspect, the audit assessed DCITA's compliance with the better practice principles outlined in the Administration of Grants Better Practice Guide (May 2002) produced by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). There are 19 separate principles covered under the broad areas of: Planning for effective grant programs; Selecting projects; Managing and monitoring funding deeds; and Evaluating and reporting grant program performance.

The audit objectives were to report on the implementation status of the parliamentary resolutions and other actions arising out of the six recommendations made in the final PSC Report, Review by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner of Aspects of the Administration of the Parliament. The audit also broadly examined the impact of implementation of the parliamentary resolutions on aspects of: the level of services provided to the Parliament generally following amalgamation of the three former parliamentary departments into the Department of Parliamentary Services; and accommodation space within Parliament House. The designated audit agency was the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS).

The objective of the audit was to assess the framework being put in place to manage and account for aid funds provided under the AIPRD. In particular, the audit addressed: structures for oversighting the development and delivery of the AIPRD; planning and risk management (including those relating to fraud and corruption); financial management; and arrangements for ongoing monitoring and reporting. The audit focussed on the arrangements being established to monitor, evaluate and report on AIPRD implementation, rather than the management of activities and outcomes achieved. This reflects the fact that the long lead times associated with establishing such a large programme of assistance had meant that only limited activities were underway at the time of audit fieldwork. The ANAO anticipates undertaking an audit in the future of the management of activities and outcomes achieved, when more funds have been expended. It was not the purpose of this audit to examine Australia's immediate emergency and humanitarian response to the tsunami crisis.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether DEWR's management and oversight of Job Placement and matching services is effective, in particular, whether: DEWR effectively manages, monitors and reports the performance of JPOs in providing Job Placement services; DEWR effectively manages the provision of matching services (including completion of vocational profiles and provision of vacancy information through auto-matching) to job seekers; Job seeker and vacancy data in DEWR's JobSearch system is high quality and is managed effectively; and DEWR effectively measures, monitors and reports Job Placement service outcomes.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether FaCSIA administers grants effectively, according to better practice guidelines, and consistently across geographic areas and the range of programmes included in the scope of the audit. The scope of the audit included grants administered by FaCSIA between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2005, relating to programmes falling within four of the five groups of programmes providing funding for families and communities namely: Community Support; Family Assistance; Childcare Support; and Youth and Student Support. In total, these groups involved total expenditure of some $533 million in 2004–05.

The objective of this follow-up audit was to review FaCSIA's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.17 1999–2000. The focus was whether FaCSIA had maintained or improved its oversight, coordination and administration of the CSHA for both the 1999 CSHA and the 2003 CSHA, in line with the recommendations and findings identified in the previous ANAO audit.

The audit objective was to form an opinion on the adequacy of a select group of Australian Government agencies' management of Internet security, including following-up on agencies' implementation of recommendations from the ANAO's 2001 audit. The agencies audited were Australian Customs Service (ACS), Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) and Medicare Australia. Factors considered in selecting agencies were agency size based on funding levels, whether the agency was included in ANAO's 2001 audit (ACS, ARPANSA, and DEWR), whether the agency's ICT was managed in-house or outsourced, and the nature of the agency's website (that is, general or restricted access).

The objective of the audit was to examine how effectively Health manages the risk of PBS drugs not being used according to PBS subsidy conditions. The audit examined two areas: during listing, how Health identified and implemented measures to decrease the risks of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions; and following listing, how Health confirmed that usage and expenditure on PBS drugs was consistent with estimates. The report examines selected approaches used by Health, which have evolved in recent years, to manage the risk of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions. The report also acknowledges and describes the role of the expert committees. The scope of the audit was limited to PBS drugs for which Health pays a subsidy. The audit did not examine Health's role in educating consumers, prescribers, and other health professionals, or the implications of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement for the PBS. Additionally, the ANAO did not form an opinion on the success of Medicare Australia's compliance role. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO interviewed Health personnel, committee members and stakeholders, examined relevant documents and files, analysed drug usage and expenditure data, and attended a number of committee meetings. To assist the audit process, the ANAO selected a sample of eight drugs. The drugs were selected due to their high cost to the PBS and/or high usage, or because the drug has had a particularly interesting PBS history. The sample is not representative of all drugs on the PBS. In 2004–05, 15.3 million prescriptions were written for these eight drugs, with the Government subsidy totalling $1.05 billion.