The audit objective was to form an opinion on the effectiveness of the NHMRC's grant administration. To meet this objective the NHMRC was assessed against four criteria:

• the NHMRC's governance arrangements provide appropriate accountability that it is meeting its objectives and obligations to Government (Chapter 2);
• there are strategic and systematic processes for developing and implementing grant programs (Chapter 3);
• the NHMRC manages grants post-award effectively, and complies with legislative requirements and program directives (Chapters 4 and 5); and
• the NHMRC monitors and evaluates its business to demonstrate that outcomes are being met (Chapter 6).

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Social Services' administration of Early Intervention Services for Children with Disability.

The objective of the audit was to assess the department’s: effectiveness in administering school funding; and implementation of recommendations made in Auditor-General Report No.18 2017–18 Monitoring the Impact of Australian Government School Funding and JCPAA Report 476: Australian Government Funding.

The objectives of this follow-up audit were to:

• examine the ATO's implementation of the ten recommendations in The Australian Taxation Office's Management of its Relationship with Tax Practitioners (Audit Report No.19, 2002–03), having regard to any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting implementation of those recommendations; and
• identify scope for improvement in the ATO's management of its relationship with tax practitioners.

Follow up audits are recognised as an important element of the accountability processes of Commonwealth administration. 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 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 assess the effectiveness of ARPANSA’s management of the regulation of Commonwealth nuclear, radiation facilities and sources, including ARPANSA’s compliance with its legislative requirements.

The objectives of the Australian National Audit Office's (ANAO) performance audit were to: examine the efficiency and effectiveness of agencies' procurement and management of legal services arrangements; determine adherence to Australian Government policy requirements; examine the effectiveness of the OLSC's monitoring of agencies' compliance with Government policy requirements; examine the OLSC's role in assisting agencies to comply with Government policy.

This audit followed up the ANAO's 1997 performance audit report on ADF health services (Audit Report No.34 1996-97 Australian Defence Force Health Services), which focused on the delivery of non-operational health services to entitled members. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess Defence's implementation of recommendations made in the original audit report and their effectiveness in improving ADF health services.

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 objective of the audit was to assess the completeness and reliability of the estimates reported in Tax Expenditures Statement 2006 (TES 2006). That is, the audit examined the development and publication of the detailed statement of actual tax expenditures required by Division 2 of Part 5 of the CBH Act. The development and publication of aggregated information on projected tax expenditures included in the Budget Papers pursuant to Division 1 of Part 5 of the CBH Act was not examined.

On 2 November 2000, the Senate agreed to a resolution that the Auditor-General be requested to review all expenditures and entitlements accruing to Parliamentarians and Ministers in 1999-2000. The resolution requested that the Auditor-General consider a number of specific matters, and report by 30 June 2001. In the course of that audit, examination of issues relating to Parliamentarians' staff was deferred in order to give the Auditor-General a reasonable chance of reporting reasonably close to the Senate's requested reporting timeframe. ANAO Audit Report No.5 2001-02, Parliamentarians' Entitlements: 1999-2000, was tabled in the Parliament in August 2001. A proposed audit of the administration by Finance of the entitlements of staff engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) Act was included in the ANAO Audit Work Program for 2001-02. The objectives of this performance audit were to: review the effectiveness of the internal control structures in the Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) concerning the administration of entitlements for MOP(S) Act staff; review the effectiveness and efficiency of the procurement and support services Finance provides in relation to MOP(S) Act staff: and identify principles of sound administrative practices to facilitate improved administrative arrangements for the future. The audit covered Finance's administration of payments and services to MOP(S) Act staff during the period 1998-99 to 2001-02. Sub-section 15(c) of the Auditor General Act 1997 precludes an audit of persons who are engaged under the MOP(S) Act. Accordingly, the audit scope did not include examination of the responsibilities of MOP(S) Act staff.