This report summarises audit and other related activities of the Australian National Audit Office in the period January to June 1998.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2015. It addresses the Requirements for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and Other Non‑corporate Commonwealth Entities approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in June 2015; the performance measures set out in the outcome and programs framework in the 2014–15 Portfolio Budget Statements; section 28 of the Auditor‑General Act 1997; and other annual reporting requirements set out in legislation.

Closing the books processes sometimes referred to as 'month-end or year-end processing' are those processes undertaken by organisations in order to generate periodic financial information. This audit focused on the monthly closing the books processes undertaken at six of the material Commonwealth organisations, in order to provide some generic conclusions on the operation and effectiveness of these periodic processes in the Commonwealth and to identify opportunities for improvement.

The objective of this audit was to the examine action taken by the ATO to improve TFN integrity, particularly through the implementation of the recommendations made in:Report No.37, taking into account any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting the implementation of those recommendations; and Numbers on the Run, taking into account that the Government has not formally responded to the report at this time.The audit also aimed to identify further opportunities for the ATO to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the TFN system. The report of this audit is necessarily detailed as it considers each of the recommendations and the extent to which they have been implemented.

The ANAO concluded that DHAC's administration of the National Cervical Screening Program is generally sound. The ANAO found that the department has a key role in the Program by providing secretariat services and other support to the NAC, which provides policy advice to AHMAC, and by supporting initiatives to further develop the Program. Some areas of DHAC's administration of the Program provide examples of good practice. Related examples are the early identification of the need to monitor the Program, the early identification of possible data sources for monitoring, and the use of an independent body to provide advice, through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, on performance indicators and data sources. A further example is DHAC's administration of the provision of cervical screening funding assistance to the States and Territories through Public Health Outcome Funding Agreements, which complies with the principles for sound Specific Purpose Payments program administration advocated by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in their Report 362. On the other hand, the ANAO has identified areas for improvement in quality assurance for the analysis of Pap smears by pathology laboratories.

The objective of this audit was to assess the systems put in place by Centrelink to protect data privacy. The audit reviewed the adequacy of the policies, procedures and the administrative framework associated with data privacy, and the computer systems that are used to store and disseminate data. The ANAO also examined compliance with legislative requirements.

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether FaCS and Centrelink had: a valid Business Case for the Edge project, as revised from time to time, including estimated costs, actual costs, and expected benefits; effective governance of the project, including reviews at critical points in the project and subsequent decisions to continue or, in the final analysis, to discontinue; an appropriate contract with SoftLaw, which was adequately managed; delivered appropriate advice on progress, project viability, and acceptable solutions to technical issues to Executive of FaCS and Centrelink during the project; and valid reasons for discontinuing the project. The ANAO began this audit in March 2004, four months after the Edge project was terminated, following the Auditor-General's agreement to a suggestion by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that the project was a suitable subject for audit.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DoHA's management of the planning and allocation of aged care places and capital grants, in accordance with the Aged Care Act 1997.

In 1999-2000, the ANAO conducted an audit in Centrelink to determine whether its planning, monitoring and costing arrangements provided a sound basis to underpin its delivery of quality, cost effective customer services. The report of that audit, Audit Report No. 43 1999-2000 Planning and Monitoring for Cost Effective Service Delivery, Staffing and Funding Arrangements, was tabled in Parliament in May 2000. The objective of this follow-up audit was to assess whether Centrelink had implemented a comprehensive costing system as a basis for planning productivity improvements and accounting for its expenditure of purchaser funds. The ANAO examined Centrelink's current costing system to determine if it reflected the design and implementation characteristics that were outlined in Audit Report No. 43.

The audit assessed whether FaCS effectively undertakes its coordination, monitoring and other roles according to the CSTDA. The audit examined all disability services provided for under the CSTDA, except for disability employment services. The ANAO met relevant officers from FaCS' national office and State and Territory offices, and with 22 stakeholder organisations including: advocacy groups; peak national and State bodies representing the interests of disability service providers and people with disabilities; members of national and State Disability Advisory Bodies funded by FaCS; State and Territory governments; relevant Australian Government agencies; In particular, the Department of Health and Ageing and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. and local government bodies. Fieldwork for the audit was primarily undertaken during the period September 2004 to February 2005.