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).

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.

The report objective is to provide the Auditor-General’s independent assurance over the status of 30 selected Major Projects, as reflected in the Statement by the Chief Executive Officer Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), and the Project Data Summary Sheets prepared by the DMO, in accordance with the Guidelines endorsed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

The objective of the audit was to determine the extent to which the new employment services market had been implemented effectively and efficiently in accordance with announced Government policy and timeframe.

The audit covered major program elements within the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Environment Australia that are managed:

• directly by DPIE or Environment Australia;
• through the One-Stop-Shop project assessment process administered by the States/Territories; or
• by non-government organisations.

The purpose of the audit was to examine and benchmark the administrative processes established for these programs. The primary focus of the audit was to draw on the best elements of past practice (particularly in relation to programs involving the One-Stop-Shop) and highlight any shortcomings so that the risks to program effectiveness and accountability could be addressed in the implementation of the Natural Heritage Trust.

Given the significant expenditure associated with the Super Seasprites, and the problems that the Project had encountered over some time, the ANAO had commenced this performance audit prior to the Government's decision to cancel the Project. The focus of the audit was on Defence's and DMO's administration of the Project. In light of the Government's decision to cancel the Project, the objective of the audit was revised to place greater emphasis on those issues that resulted in the failure of the Project to provide the required capability, and highlighting project management lessons for major Defence acquisitions going forward.Accordingly the audit objective was to:

• identify those factors that contributed to the on-going poor performance of the Project;
• outline measures taken by Defence and DMO in seeking to overcome issues encountered by the Project, and key lessons arising from this project for the benefit of major acquisitions projects generally; and
• determine the capability and cost implications of a project that failed to deliver to expectations.

The objective of this report is to provide the Auditor-General’s independent assurance over the status of selected Major Projects, as reflected in the Project Data Summary Sheets (PDSSs) prepared by the DMO, and the Statement by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) DMO. Assurance from the ANAO’s review of the preparation of the PDSSs by the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is conveyed in the Auditor-General’s Independent Review Report, prepared pursuant to the endorsed Guidelines, contained in Part 3.