This performance audit is the first property management audit that the ANAO has conducted since the FMA Act came into effect in 1997, with the associated devolution of responsibility to agency heads. The audit included coverage of office accommodation currently leased in Australia from the private sector. This office accommodation was housing the functions and activities of clerical, technical or professional staff, including conference and meeting rooms and ministerial suites but excluding basements, car parks, theatrettes, and cafeterias.

The audit examined aspects of financial management in the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). The audit objective was to examine the effectiveness of the HIC's internal control structures, as well as its financial management framework and processes, in order to form an opinion on their ability to support HIC Commissioners and managers to make informed decisions on the efficient and effective use of Commonwealth resources.

The objective of the ANAO audit was to identify possible areas for improvement in the Australian Defence Force's management of its Reserve forces. The audit focused on major aspects of the Reserves including roles and tasks, force structure, capability, training, individual readiness, equipment, facilities, recruitment, retention, conditions of service and administration. The audit covered the Australian Naval Reserve, the Australian Army Reserve and the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve. However, due to its size and cost, the Army Reserve was a major focus of the audit activity.

Recent performance audit priority for the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio has been directed at the administration of funding for land transport. Accordingly, this audit is one of a series ANAO is undertaking of land transport funding programs. Four audits have already been completed, namely:

• ANAO Audit Report No. 31 2005–06, Roads to Recovery;
• ANAO Audit Report No. 45 2006–07, The National Black Spot Program;
• ANAO Audit Report No. 22 2007–08, Administration of Grants to the Australian Rail Track Corporation; and
• ANAO Audit Report No. 29 2008–09, Delivery of Projects on the AusLink National Network.

The objective of this follow-up audit was to examine the ATO's implementation of the 20 recommendations in: The Administration of Petroleum Excise Collections (Audit Report No.17, 2001(02); and The Administration of Tobacco Excise (Audit Report No. 55, 2001(02), having regard to any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting implementation of those recommendations. The audit also aimed to identify scope for improvement in the ATO's administration of petroleum and tobacco excise. Follow-up audits are recognised as an important element of the accountability processes of Commonwealth administration. The Parliament looks to the Auditor-General to report, from time to time, on the extent to which Commonwealth agencies have implemented recommendations of previous audit reports. Follow-up audits keep the Parliament informed of progressive improvements and current challenges in areas of Commonwealth administration that have previously been subject to scrutiny through performance audits.

The objective of the audit was to review and assess the use, and management of, automatic exchanges of information under Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) by the Tax Office.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Australian Government Reconstruction Inspectorate, supported by the National Disaster Recovery Taskforce, in providing assurance that value for money is being achieved in recovery and reconstruction expenditure in Victoria.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the ATO’s administration of DGR endorsements and associated arrangements.

The objective of this audit was to form an opinion on the Australian Research Council's (ARC's) management of research grants. To achieve this, ANAO centred the audit around the following aspects of ARC's grants administration: governance and structure, particularly the roles and responsibilities of those parties involved in administering ARC's grants (Chapter 2); the processes for assessing and selecting ARC grants (Chapter 3);post-award management of grants under the Funding Agreements (Agreements) between ARC and those universities that receive and administer the ARC grants to researchers (Chapter 4); and ARC's monitoring of its grant programs for management, performance improvement and reporting (Chapter 5). In its assessment, ANAO considered ARC's compliance with relevant sections of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 (ARC Act) and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act). The assessment also took account of the ANAO's Better Practice Guides, particularly the Better Practice Guide—Administration of Grants. The audit focused mainly on ARC's administration of Discovery Projects, the largest scheme in ARC's National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP).

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DSEWPaC's administration of PIIOP, including the acquisition of water access entitlements and progress towards achieving the program's objectives.

The objective of the audit was to report to Parliament on the ATO's management of its performance reporting within the outcomes and outputs framework and to identify potential areas for improvement in specifying, measuring, administering and reporting under that framework.

The objective of the audit is to assess the effectiveness of the ATO's administration of debt collection. Micro-business debt is a particular focus of attention. The three key areas examined are:

• strategies–especially the ATO's initiatives trialled in 2006;
• infrastructure–the IT systems, people, policy and processes and risk management framework supporting the collection of debt; and
• management and governance–planning, monitoring and reporting mechanisms and liaison with stakeholders.

The ANAO focused on the work of the campaigns area within the Debt Line, which has collection responsibility for 90 per cent of collectable debt cases and responsibility for other key, centralised functions such as reporting, quality assurance review, consistency and best practice, and the debt collection initiatives.

Mr Ian McPhee - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Canberra Evaluation Forum, The Lobby, Canberra

The audit reviewed the construction of facilities for the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence by the Defence Estate Organisation. The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of the Organisation's project delivery function, highlighting effective practice and, where appropriate, making practical recommendations to enhance facilities project management. The main projects examined were the facilities required for the Army Presence in the North and the Russell Hill Redevelopment.

The objectives of the audit were to form an opinion on the management of Commonwealth agencies' compliance with the Commonwealth's energy efficiency requirements and to identify areas for better practice in energy management. The audit focussed on:

• the implementation of the Energy Policy by Commonwealth Agencies; promulgation and coordination of energy use targets;
• energy and associated reporting by Commonwealth agencies;
• identification, examination and analysis of systemic and procedural impediments to achieving the Energy Policy; and
• development and discussion of ways to address these impediments.

The audit addressed administration of migrant settlement services by DIMA, in particular:

• strategic management, including corporate planning, performance measurement and reporting arrangements; and
• operational management of some of the individual schemes operated by DIMA (the Adult English Migrant Program and Translating Interpreting Services were not covered as part of this audit).

The objective of the audit was to assess how effectively DHS (including CSA), FaHCSIA and Centrelink managed the implementation of stage one of the CSSR and the Improving Compliance program.

The ANAO first examined asset management in the general government sector in 1995. The outcome of that review was presented in Audit Report No. 27, 1995-96, Asset Management. The primary objectives of the current review were to:

• ascertain the degree of acceptance of the previous audit recommendations;
• establish the extent to which organisations were managing their assets in accordance with the asset management principles espoused in the Asset Management Handbook; and
• examine any central coordination initiatives in asset management.

Meeting these objectives permits the ANAO to express an updated opinion on the state of asset management in the general government sector other than for specialised military equipment.

The audit reviewed the Australian Taxation Office's fraud prevention and contol arrangements in relation to the Goods and Services Tax. The audit objective was to assess whether the ATO has implemented administratively effective GST fraud control arrangements, consistent with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.

The audit reviewed the Defence Department's management of the Defence Cooperation (DC) Program, through which Australia interacts with and provides assistance to security forces in South East Asia and the South Pacific. The primary aim of the program is to support Australia's defence relationships. Activities conducted through the program include training, study visits, personnel exchanges and combined exercises with elements of the various regional armed forces. The Pacific Patrol Boat Project is part of the program. The objectives of the audit were to:

1) consider how Defence assesses performance in meeting DC objectives;

2) review Defence's development of DC objectives; and

3) identify areas for improvement in managing DC resources.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the major elements of Centrelink's central, strategic level project management arrangements, as defined in the CPMF. It focused on how well:

• the CPMF supports better management and service delivery in Centrelink;
• the CPMF supports project managers and projects to comply with better project management principles, relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• Centrelink monitors project performance and encouraged the attainment of project objectives.

The objective of the audit was to assess FSANZ's administration of its food standard functions, as specified in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act, 1991 (last amended 2007).
Particular emphasis was given to whether:

• FSANZ's performance management and reporting provided effective support and ensures accountability;
• FSANZ effectively administered its food standard development and variation function, including its stakeholder management; and
• FSANZ effectively monitored the implementation of its standards and coordinates relevant jurisdictions to address market failures.

The audit objective was to assess selected agencies’ compliance with the four mandatory ICT security strategies and related controls in the Australian Government Information Security Manual.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Scheme is being administered effectively by the department. The ANAO focussed on Program Year 1 of the Scheme, 2005–06, and examined DIISR's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of entities to receive grants;
• assessing entities' claims for eligible expenditure;
• adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme when calculating and paying claims, and managing any debts that arise;
• and evaluating and reporting on whether the statutory objective of the Scheme is being met.

The audit did not examine the other components of the 2005–2015 industry assistance package; nor did it examine any of the programs delivered under the previous assistance package (2000–2005).

The objective of the report is to review the effectiveness of remediation activities put in place by Defence and the DMO to improve the performance of SDSS following the delivery in July 2003 of the SDSS Upgrade Project, with specific attention to the SDSS Get Well Programme. The audit reviewed the outcomes of the Get Well Programme, and assessed how effectively a segment of the Defence supply chain (of which SDSS is one key component) was meeting selected maritime end user capability and reporting requirements. In order to achieve this, the audit reviewed three key maritime combatant forces: COLLINS Class submarines; Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigates (FFGs); and ANZAC Class Frigates. The ANAO notes that these three capabilities account for some 50 per cent of the Navy's total forecast expenditure for 2006–07.

The Department of Defence spends some $2.4 billion a year on major equipment acquisition projects. The audit objective was to assess Defence's arrangements for higher-level management of major equipment acquisition projects. The principal aim was to formulate practical recommendations that would both enhance Defence's management of major acquisition projects and provide a degree of assurance about its ongoing apparent capacity to do so efficiently and effectively.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the WHM programme is administered effectively and in accordance with relevant laws and policies. In particular, the ANAO focused on four key areas: the implementation of eWHM visa; authority for the WHM programme; decision-making for WHM visas; and programme performance information. A feature of the audit was the computer-aided scrutiny of over 300 000 visa application records to test DIMA's decision-making processes.

The objective of this report is to provide information, prepared by both the ANAO and DMO, on the performance of major projects as well as providing the Auditor-General’s formal conclusion on the review of the Project Data Summary Sheets (PDSSs) prepared by DMO and contained in this report.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of agencies' contract management by determining if they had sound practices and systematic approaches to this activity. Particular attention was given to each agency's:

• day-to-day management of individual contracts; and
• approach to managing its contract population.

The audit objective was to examine progress in the development of an overarching approach and guidance for the management of the Commonwealth's intellectual property (Recommendation No. 2 of Audit Report No. 25 of 2003–04).