The audit objectives were to assess the effectiveness of:

• selected agencies’ administration in developing advertising campaigns and implementing key processes against the requirements of the Australian Government’s campaign advertising framework, and other key legal and administrative requirements; and
• the ongoing administration of the campaign advertising framework.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Australian Government's responsibilities under the NPARSD. In this respect the ANAO considered whether:

• planning processes enabled effective establishment of the remote service delivery model;
• implementation of the key elements of the remote service delivery model effectively addressed the quality and timing requirements of the NPARSD; and
• performance measurement systems were developed to enable the parties to the agreement to assess whether the NPARSD objectives are being met.

The audit assessed FaHCSIA's management of AACAP and how the department monitors the contribution the program is making to the improvement of primary and environmental health, and living conditions, in remote Indigenous communities.

The audit examined program delivery under the 2006–2009 MoU, as well as the planning for the 2010 project under the variation to the 2006–2009 MoU. As part of the audit the ANAO considered:

• program strategy and implementation including the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders, community selection and scope of works (Chapter 2);
• the financial management of the program and the changing role of the Contracted Program Manager (Chapter 3); and
• performance measures, including FaHCSIA's performance reporting framework, and approach to monitoring and reporting performance against the stated program objectives (Chapter 4).

The audit focused on AACAP in so far as it relates to Indigenous community outcomes. It did not consider the program from the perspective of the Australian Defence Force capability building.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, Centrelink undertakes its role effectively, so as to support the timely implementation of the Tribunals' decisions about customers' entitlements. In assessing Centrelink's performance, the ANAO examined whether:

• the information provided by Centrelink, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, effectively supported customers' and Tribunals' decision-making;
• the relationships and administrative arrangements between Centrelink, DEEWR and FaHCSIA supported the effective management of the appeal process and the capture of issues that may have broader implications for legislation, policy and service delivery; and
• Centrelink implemented SSAT and AAT decisions in an effective and timely manner.

The audit focused on the external review and appeal mechanisms and completes the cycle of audits on Centrelink's review and appeal system. The audit examined those appeals where an implementation action was required and did not consider SSAT and AAT appeals that were dismissed, withdrawn or were not within the Tribunals' jurisdiction.

The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracts. This included assessing compliance with the Order and following up on the implementation of recommendations made in previous Senate Order audits.

The audit involved three components:

• an examination of a stratified random sample of 150 contracts listed as containing confidentiality provisions from material and small agencies across the Australian Government to determine whether confidentiality provisions were used and reported appropriately;
• an examination of all FMA Act agencies' calendar year 2009 contract listings, and ministers' letters of advice, to assess compliance with the requirements of the Order, and check reported instances of excluded contracts; and
• a follow-up of the implementation of previous audit recommendations relating to the administration of the Senate Order in four agencies. The selected agencies were the: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF); and the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court). The selected agencies were audited in one of the ANAO's previous five audits of Senate Order compliance.

The objective of the audit was to examine key aspects of the NBN RFP process, including:

• the background to and conduct of the RFP process;
• management of key risks associated with the process and outcome; and
• stakeholder consultations.

The objective of this audit was to determine whether selected Australian Government organisations had effective processes for managing the annual leave entitlements of their staff, and whether systems and controls over the processing of annual leave were working as intended. In addressing this objective, the audit also assessed progress being made by the audited organisations in implementing the recommendations in ANAO Audit Report No.16 2005-06.

The objective of the audit, in examining the construction of the CIIDC, was to assess:

• the adequacy of the planning and delivery processes for the project;
• the value-for-money achieved in the delivery of the project, including with regard to the suitability of the centre for its intended purpose; and
• the extent to which the Public Works Committee Act.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the management and administration of the Communications Fund, including an assessment of:

• the development and implementation of appropriate investment strategies; and
• the robustness of the governance structures and controls relating to investment activities.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of personnel security arrangements at selected Australian Government organisations, including whether they satisfied the requirements of the PSM.
To address this objective, the audit examined the extent to which the selected organisations implemented the 14 recommendations from the three previous reports.

The audit objective was to determine whether DIAC's biometrics program had appropriate:

• business review processes (including a business case);
• authorisation;
• business and IT governance arrangements; and
• IT project management and systems development arrangements.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tribunals' management of their operations. To this end, the audit examined whether the MRT and the RRT:

• have achieved intended operational efficiencies from the introduction of common facilities, services and resourcing;
• have established appropriate arrangements for governance, business planning and guidance of Members and staff, and for performance monitoring and reporting of Tribunal operations;
• finalise cases within Tribunal time and productivity standards; and
• provide applicants with services in accordance with service standards.

The audit covered Tribunal operations for review of visa decisions. The correctness of individual decisions was not assessed as part of the audit.

The audit focused particularly on developments in the Tribunals' management performance in the four year period from 2001–02 to 2004–05.

The audit objective was to assess whether the early stages of DIAC's preparations for the re-tendering of the detention and health services contracts were consistent with sound practice. The audit focused on governance arrangements, in particular the recordkeeping arrangements, roles and responsibilities of personnel, expert advisors and the probity auditor—matters raised in the previous audit report. The audit did not examine the RFT, which is not due to be issued until April 2007.

The objective of the audit was to:

• assess, in a selection of FMA Act and CAC Act agencies, how well the revised Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines had been implemented; and
• identify any better practice or common problem areas to assist other agencies in their future procurement activities.

The audit focused on procurement requirements that had changed as a result of the revised CPGs, rather than being a more general audit of compliance with all procurement requirements.
The audit was conducted in the following entities:

• Australian Federal Police;
• Bureau of Meteorology;
• Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO);
• Department of Defence;
• Department of Education, Science & Training;
• Family Court of Australia; and
• National Museum of Australia.

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 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 objectives of the audit were to provide assurance that Artbank was effectively meeting its charter of: acquiring art by contemporary artists; expanding the number of public places that Artbank's collection is rented and displayed; and managing its collection and rental scheme. The audit also examined Artbank's governance arrangements, and its programmes for marketing, client development, performance management, budgeting, debt management and also sought client feedback on Artbank's operations via a survey.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess whether DIMIA's information systems and business processes are effective in supporting APP to meet its border security and streamlined clearance objectives. In particular, the audit focused on the following: Mandatory APP - Stage 1 (MAPP1) project management; MAPP1 IT development and system performance; APP performance reporting; contract management; and financial management.