The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the management of maintenance of the Defence estate, taking particular account of planning and delivery aspects.

The audit examined: Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and supporting tools related to the planning and delivery of the maintenance of the estate; and services provided to Defence by private sector firms in relation to maintenance activities. The audit did not focus on contract management matters, nor on the systems used by Defence to maintain information related to estate maintenance.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DIAC’s management of individual management services provided to people in immigration detention.

The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the AEC’s implementation of the recommendation made in ANAO Audit Report No. 28 2009–10 relating to the transport and storage of completed ballot papers.

The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of the CCAS. The audit focused on the following key areas: targeting non-compliance; real time compliance activity; post transaction compliance activity; and planning and performance evaluation. As the imports phase of the Integrated Cargo System (ICS) was only introduced in October 2005, this system was not reviewed as part of the audit. Our audit programme for 2005–06 includes ICS as a potential audit topic.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DFAT's management of the overseas leased estate. In particular, the audit examined whether DFAT:

• has effective governance, reporting and funding arrangements in place to support the sound management and oversight of the overseas leased estate;
• effectively manages overseas leased chancery and residential property on a day-to-day basis; and
• manages relationships with landlords and attached agencies effectively and adequately consults with stakeholders.

The objective of this follow-up audit was to review FaCSIA's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.17 1999–2000. The focus was whether FaCSIA had maintained or improved its oversight, coordination and administration of the CSHA for both the 1999 CSHA and the 2003 CSHA, in line with the recommendations and findings identified in the previous ANAO audit.

The audit objective was to examine how effectively the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) manages the importation of live animals into Australia.

The audit assessed FaHCSIA's management of AACAP and how the department monitors the contribution the program is making to the improvement of primary and environmental health, and living conditions, in remote Indigenous communities.

The audit examined program delivery under the 2006–2009 MoU, as well as the planning for the 2010 project under the variation to the 2006–2009 MoU. As part of the audit the ANAO considered:

• program strategy and implementation including the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders, community selection and scope of works (Chapter 2);
• the financial management of the program and the changing role of the Contracted Program Manager (Chapter 3); and
• performance measures, including FaHCSIA's performance reporting framework, and approach to monitoring and reporting performance against the stated program objectives (Chapter 4).

The audit focused on AACAP in so far as it relates to Indigenous community outcomes. It did not consider the program from the perspective of the Australian Defence Force capability building.

The objective of the audit was to report on the progress of the current phase of the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Program, which is known as SEA 4000 Phase 3–Build. This phase commenced in June 2007, and covers the finalisation of the detailed design, the signing of the Alliance and Platform System Design contracts, and the construction and delivery of the ships by the Industry Participants to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO).

The audit focuses on DMO's equipment acquisition and support, at the system program management level. The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of Defence's capital equipment project definition, approval, acquisition and logistics support management. The SPOs subject to audit are:Aerospace Systems Division's Tactical Fighter Systems Program Office (TFSPO), which is responsible for acquisition and logistics support management of the Air Force's F/A-18 and Hawk 127 fleets and associated equipment. TFSPO is located at Williamtown, NSW; Land Systems Division's Track Manoeuvre Systems Program Office (TMSPO), which is responsible for the acquisition and logistics support management of Army's Leopard Tanks and M113 Armed Personnel Carrier fleets. TMSPO is located in Melbourne;Electronic and Weapon Systems Division's Over-the-Horizon Radar Systems Program Office (OTHRSPO), which is responsible for acquisition and logistics support management of the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) and Jindalee OTHR systems. OTHRSPO is located within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) precinct at Edinburgh, South Australia; and Maritime Systems Division's Fast Frigate Guided System Program Office (FFGSPO), which is responsible for the support and upgrade of the Navy's FFG fleet. FFGSPO is located at Garden Island, Sydney.In view of the significant role that DMO's SPOs play in managing major capital equipment acquisition projects, the audit includes a case study of the $1.448 billion Fast Frigate Guided (FFG) Upgrade Project. A high level of audit assurance is not able to be provided on the FFG Upgrade Project given deficiencies in the FFGSPO information management systems and deficiencies in the level of design and development disclosure provided to SPO personnel by the FFG Upgrade Prime Contractor. The ANAO was unable to access appropriate audit evidence on the financial expenditure associated with the FFG Upgrade Project, and the Project's approved Equipment Acquisition Strategy.