The report summarises the final results of the audits of the financial statements of Australian Government entities, being the second report this year on financial statements for the period ended 30 June 2003. It complements Audit Report No.61 2002-2003 Control Structures as part of the Audit of Financial Statements of Major Commonwealth Entities for the Year Ending 30 June 2003.

Directly after the collapse of Ansett in September 2001, most of its estimated 15 000 employees faced the possibility of retrenchment The Government immediately announced the introduction of the Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett group employees (SEESA) to address two risks facing the employees:

• the risk-to a certain limit - of a shortfall in their payments of accrued employee entitlements from Ansett and,
• the risk of delay in their being paid.

The objective of the audit was to determine how efficiently and effectively the two key elements of SEESA were managed: DEWR's management of the mechanism for making SEESA payments and DOTARS' management of the associated Air Passenger Ticket Levy.

The objective of the audit was to assess the Australian Agency for International Development's (AusAid) planning for, and management of, the delivery of aid to East Timor. The audit examined Australia's emergency and humanitarian response following the crisis in East Timor in 1999; AusAID's post-crisis strategy for assisting East Timor; coordination with overseas donors; and financial contributions to multilateral reconstruction assistance. Australia's bilateral assistance, comprising shorter-term transitional assistance and medium-term development assistance, was also examined.

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.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) completed a performance audit of the ATO's use of AUSTRAC data in August 2000, titled The AustralianTaxation Office's Use of AUSTRAC Data, Audit Report No. 7 2000-2001. It found that the ATO had used AUSTRAC data to achieve a significant improvement in the collection of taxation revenue. The ANAO considered that the ATO could build on this success by using AUSTRAC data more effectively at both the strategic and operational levels. The audit made six recommendations. The ATO agreed with all recommendations. The objective of this follow-up performance audit was to assess the ATO's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No 7 2000-2001, The Australian Taxation Office's Use of AUSTRAC Data.

An ANAO audit of AQIS' cost-recovery systems was conducted in 2000-01 (Audit Report No 10, 2000-01), following a request from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA). That audit aimed to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of AQIS' cost-recovery systems, and provide assurance to Parliament that cost-recoverable programs were identifying and recovering the full costs of services provided, without cross-subsidisation. The ANAO made six recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of AQIS cost-recovery systems. The JCPAA, at a subsequent hearing, made a further three recommendations. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess AQIS' implementation of the ANAO and the JCPAA recommendations. The audit also aimed to determine whether implementation of these recommendations, or alternative actions taken to address the issues leading to the recommendations, had improved AQIS' management of its cost-recovery processes.

The objectives of the follow-up audit were to assess DFAT's implementation of the six recommendations made by the ANAO in the previous audit. It also sought to determine whether implementation of these recommendations, or alternative action, had improved DFAT's administration of consular services. The audit focused on management processes and supporting systems for the delivery of consular services. It also reviewed DFAT's implementation of recommendations of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee that were outstanding from the previous audit.

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 Survey of Fraud Control Arrangements in APS agencies was conducted to identify improvements made by agencies since the 1999 survey, and in response to the revised Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines released in May 2002. Its objective was to assess the key aspects of fraud control arrangements in place across the APS against the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002.

The objective of the audit was to form an opinion on ATSIS' management of the Law and Justice Program, having particular regard to the relative needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The audit focused primarily on how effectively ATSIS manages and delivers the provision of legal services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The audit was desgined to compelement but not to reproduce previous audit and other evaluation activity relevant to the Program.