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.

The audit reviewed the Defence Materiel Organisation's management of the $3.43 billion Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) project. The Wedgetail project is to provide the Australian Defence Force with an AEW&C capability based on four Boeing 737 AEW&C aircraft and associated supplies and logistic support. At the time of the audit the AEW&C systems were still in their early development phase, and by November 2003, Defence had spent $1.107 billion on the project.

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 audit assessed whether Centrelink has effective Business Continuity Management and/or associated risk management procedures and plans in place that: minimise the likelihood of a significant business outage; and in the event of such an outage, minimise disruption of critical services to customers. The audit also assessed whether Centrelink services satisfy special community demands in times of emergency.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence is effectively managing the delivery of health services to ADF personnel in Australia (chiefly Garrison Health Services).

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the award of funding under the Building Better Regions Fund was effective as well as being consistent with the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines.

On 3 February 2010, Senator Christine Milne wrote to the Auditor General raising concerns about DEWHA's administration of the Green Loans program and requesting a performance audit of the program. Issues raised included: uncapped assessor numbers; problems with the delivery of the program; the quality of assessor training and assessments provided to households; the lack of an audit facility within the program; and equitable access to work under the program.

In light of Senator Milne's request and other concerns in relation to the administration of the program, the Auditor-General agreed on 25 February 2010 to conduct a performance audit of the program. The objective of the audit was to examine key aspects of the establishment and administration of the Green Loans program by DEWHA and the program's transition to DCCEE. Particular emphasis was given to the program's three main elements:

• training, registration and contracting of assessors;
• scheduling, conduct, and reporting of home sustainability assessments, and the associated payments to assessors; and
• provision of green loans to householders, and the associated payments to participating financial institutions.

The audit also examined the extent to which steps had been taken by DEWHA and DCCEE to assess whether the Green Loans program was achieving its objectives.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence effectively managed the procurement process for services related to the recruitment of personnel to the ADF and the introduction of a new service provider.

The objective of the audit was to evaluate the Tax Office's corporate management of data matching, including analytics.

The ANAO examined the Tax Office's strategic goals and governance arrangements for data matching and analytics, its compliance with privacy requirements and whether the Tax Office is achieving intended results, which include revenue collection, optimised compliance and provision of improved services to taxpayers.

Tax Office executives have been increasingly drawing on the interrelationships and conceptual commonalities of Tax Office data matching and analytics activity. Accordingly, the audit included these relationships and conceptual commonalities within the scope of the audit. The audit was guided, therefore, by a broader definition of ‘data matching': meaning ‘finding relationships and patterns in large volumes of data'. This includes the more traditional idea of data matching as ‘bringing together data from different sources and comparing it'.

The audit focussed on the systems and processes OGTR has established for both receiving and assessing applications under the Act, and also for ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements through monitoring and inspection. The audit objective was to form an opinion on the discharge by OGTR of selected functions entrusted to it under the Act. The audit assessed the practices of OGTR against the following principal criteria: Assessment of applications under the Act: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for the management and assessment of applications under the Act. Ensuring compliance—monitoring, inspection and enforcement activities: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Act. Performance management: Whether OGTR manages selected aspects of its work efficiently and effectively. The audit did not seek to form an opinion on the appropriateness of the chosen structure of the regime for regulating gene technology or the merit of the scientific judgments involved. The audit methodology included discussions with representatives from agencies that co-ordinate aspects of the co-operative regulatory regime for gene technology across Australian jurisdictions, with various other stakeholders and users of the regime, as well as with officers of OGTR, along with examination of OGTR documents and files.