Although the audit examined broader aspects of the ATO's administration (such as, tobacco excise governance arrangements, intelligence capability and compliance and investigations activities), we placed particular emphasis on the strategies used by the ATO to address the proliferation of chop-chop (Australian grown tobacco sold illicitly in a chopped up form for $80 to $100 per kilogram. In comparison, 50 grams of legal roll-you-own tobacco costs around $16 i.e. $320 per kilogram) in the Australian markets, as it is an area of major risk to tobacco excise revenue.

The objectives of this audit were to assess, with respect to guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort:

• changes in the size and nature of the Commonwealth's reported exposure since 30 June 1995;
• the extent of improvement in agencies' management and monitoring of the Commonwealth's exposure to these instruments;
• the approach of agencies to effective risk management and control of Commonwealth exposures to these instruments; and
• whether current reporting practices provide a sufficiently comprehensive coverage for public accountability purposes, at both the agency and whole of government levels.

The audit objective was to assess whether the Regional Partnerships Programme has been effectively managed by DOTARS, including the processes by which:

• applications are sought, received and assessed;
• Funding Agreements with grant recipients are developed and managed; and
• the achievement of project and programme outcomes is monitored and assessed.

The objective of the audit was to express an opinion on the effectiveness of HOP management having regard to: compliance with applicable Australian Government policies; compliance with internal guidelines to assist loans officers to assess applications and manage loans; and programme performance reporting.

The ANAO conducted fieldwork in each of the audited agencies to identify the processes they used to design and review forms. The ANAO also identified the extent to which the agencies' forms are available online and their approaches to placing forms online.

The objective of the audit was to report to Parliament on the progress Defence has made since June 2001 in implementing appropriate strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel. The audit focused on management of specialist information system skills and did not examine skills needed by users of information systems, although the latter is of obvious importance for overall performance. In June 2001, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), after reviewing the ANAO's Audit Report No. 11 Knowledge System Equipment Acquisition Projects in Defence, commented that its major concern about Defence's ability to develop a knowledge edge with adequate coherence, centred on Defence's ability to recruit, develop and retain skilled individuals needed in all parts of the DIE. The JCPAA recommended that the ANAO conduct an audit of Defence's strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel.

The audit reviewed Commonwealth debt management procedures. The audit objectives were to:

• review, and consider opportunities to improve, the reporting and disclosure of the Commonwealth's public debt;
• assess the effectiveness of the raising, management and retirement of Commonwealth debt, consistent with an acceptable degree of risk exposure; and
• determine whether there are opportunities to improve the Commonwealth's approach to the raising, management and retirement of Commonwealth debt.

The objective of this audit was to assess the administration and implementation of the drought assistance measures. The audit focussed on EC, including prima facie EC, and key aspects of the additional drought assistance measures.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the services delivered through ATO shopfronts to individual and micro enterprise tax clients. Particular emphasis was given to the delivery of services to clients and planning and reporting processes for shopfront services.

The objective of the audit was to examine how effectively Health manages the risk of PBS drugs not being used according to PBS subsidy conditions. The audit examined two areas: during listing, how Health identified and implemented measures to decrease the risks of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions; and following listing, how Health confirmed that usage and expenditure on PBS drugs was consistent with estimates. The report examines selected approaches used by Health, which have evolved in recent years, to manage the risk of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions. The report also acknowledges and describes the role of the expert committees. The scope of the audit was limited to PBS drugs for which Health pays a subsidy. The audit did not examine Health's role in educating consumers, prescribers, and other health professionals, or the implications of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement for the PBS. Additionally, the ANAO did not form an opinion on the success of Medicare Australia's compliance role. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO interviewed Health personnel, committee members and stakeholders, examined relevant documents and files, analysed drug usage and expenditure data, and attended a number of committee meetings. To assist the audit process, the ANAO selected a sample of eight drugs. The drugs were selected due to their high cost to the PBS and/or high usage, or because the drug has had a particularly interesting PBS history. The sample is not representative of all drugs on the PBS. In 2004–05, 15.3 million prescriptions were written for these eight drugs, with the Government subsidy totalling $1.05 billion.