The audit reviewed the operation of the payment of accounts function in 8 Commonwealth organisations against their internal control framework. The main objectives of the audit were to determine whether organisations had implemented appropriate risk management strategies for the processing of accounts and whether payment for goods ans services had been properly authorised. The audit also reviewed progress since the payment of accounts audit undertaken in 1996 ( Audit Report No. 16, 1996-97, Financial Control and Administration Audit, Payment of Accounts).

The objective of the audit was to report on whether Defence applies Life-cycle Costing appropriately in support of decisions throughout the acquisition and management of its capital assets, and to make recommendations for any improvement. Criteria were established against each of the issues considered by the audit, namely LCC policy and coordination, use of LCC in investment decisions, use of LCC to support budgeting, data to support LCC and LCC training and education.

The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to Parliament concerning the adequacy of Defence preparedness management systems and to identify possible areas for improvement. The audit focused on the systems and processes that Defence uses to manage preparedness. We did not review the preparedness levels of specific capabilities, nor did we cover capital acquisition processes. The audit included coverage of: - preparedness systems architecture; - control and direction of preparedness; - coordination among contributors to preparedness; and - performance management and preparedness.

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 the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Defence’s monitoring of the implementation of ANAO and internal audit recommendations. The audit also examined a sample of ANAO and internal audit recommendations—reported as being complete by Defence—to assess the extent to which these recommendations had been implemented by Defence.

The audit sought to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the ADF's management of fuel and lubricants and to identify possible areas for improvement. The audit focused on major aspects of the fuel supply chain, in particular the strategic management of fuel (eg. the coordination of fuel requirements and stockholding policy). The audit also reviewed fuel procurement practices, storage and handling issues. The audit coverage addressed the fuel supply aspects of these matters rather than transport, distribution and equipment issues. Although directed principally towards operational fuels, the audit took into consideration issues associated with ADF's requirement for oils and lubricants.

Directly after the collapse of Ansett in September 2001, most of its estimated 15 000 employees faced the possibility of retrenchment The Government immediately announced the introduction of the Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett group employees (SEESA) to address two risks facing the employees:

• the risk-to a certain limit - of a shortfall in their payments of accrued employee entitlements from Ansett and,
• the risk of delay in their being paid.

The objective of the audit was to determine how efficiently and effectively the two key elements of SEESA were managed: DEWR's management of the mechanism for making SEESA payments and DOTARS' management of the associated Air Passenger Ticket Levy.

The objectives of the audit were to: assess compliance with the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998 and Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Act 1998 and other relevant legislation; assess the effectiveness of the administrative and financial controls regarding the collection of the Stevedoring Levy by DoTRS and the provision of redundancy payments to eligible employees of stevedoring companies and the management of the funding of those payments by way of borrowings by MIFCo; and review the administrative efficiency of the redundancy payment and Stevedoring Levy collection aspects of the waterfront redundancy scheme.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether protective security functions in selected organisations were being effectively managed. In considering effectiveness, the audit assessed whether protective security arrangements: - were designed within the context of the business framework and the related security risks identified by the organisation; and - provided an appropriate level of support for the organisation's operations and the delivery of its services.

The objective of the audit was to form an opinion on the administrative effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of the Department of Health and Aged Care's delivery of health services to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.