The Procedures for Determining Breaches of the (APS) Code of Conduct must be complied with in determining whether an Australian Public Service (APS) employee has breached the Code of Conduct (the Code) set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act), and in determining what, if any, sanction is to be imposed on an APS employee who has breached the Code of Conduct.

The audit objective was to assess whether Australian Government agencies were effectively controlling the use of credit cards for official purposes.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess agencies' financial management of, and accountability for, the use of net appropriation agreements to increase available appropriations.

The audit objective was to assess how four key departments: Education, Science and Training (DEST); Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR); Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA); and Health and Ageing (DoHA) are implementing the Government's policy objective for Indigenous service delivery.

The objectives of the audit were to:

• determine the extent to which government entities complied with the requirement to publish and maintain documents online that were presented to the Parliament;
• evaluate selected government entities' policies and practices regarding online publishing; and
• assess AGIMO's policy and guidance in support of online publishing.

To address this objective the audit was conducted in three parts. Firstly, we reviewed a sample of papers tabled between 2000 and 2008 in order to assess their availability online. Next, we examined the online publishing practices of five government entities. These were the: Australian Federal Police (AFP); Department of the House of Representatives (DHR); Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure); Department of the Treasury (Treasury); and National Archives of Australia (NAA). Finally, we reviewed AGIMO's role in supporting government entities in their online publishing practices.

The objective of the audit was to assess DoHA's effectiveness:

• in undertaking PIP program planning, program monitoring and review; and
• with Medicare Australia, in ensuring PIP program delivery to general practices and their medical practitioners.

In undertaking the audit, the ANAO considered the 12 incentives that comprised the PIP up to August 2009. The three most recently introduced incentives at the time of audit fieldwork, namely, Domestic Violence, GP Aged Care Access and eHealth incentives, were examined in greater detail and formed case studies to support audit analysis. The ANAO also sought views on the program administration from industry, including from general practices directly through an online survey.

With regard to accreditation of general practice, the audit scope did not include an assessment of the Standards nor the work of the bodies that undertake accreditation of general practices. The ANAO's focus on general practice accreditation related to DoHA's management of program entry criteria.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of management of the procurement of a major, replacement capability for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) by the DMO, and Defence. The audit reviewed the initial capability requirements and approval process; analysed the acquisition agreements for elements of the project; and examined the interim through-life support arrangements being put in place to support the capability.

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 the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of the Tax Office's strategies to address serious non-compliance. In conducting the audit, the ANAO examined the Tax Office's management framework and arrangements to deter, detect and deal with fraud and serious evasion.

The current audit has focussed on Stage 2 of the Scheme. Its objective was to assess whether ACIS is being administered effectively by DIISR and, as relevant, by Customs. In particular, the audit examined the department's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of participants to receive duty credits;
• calculating duty credits accurately and adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme;
• checking the integrity of participants' claims, which are self-assessed;
• accounting for the duty credits transferred to and used at Customs; and
• measuring and reporting on the performance of ACIS.

The audit also followed up on whether the ANAO's previous recommendations have been addressed.