The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DIAC's administration of the health requirement of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). To achieve this objective, the ANAO examined whether DIAC was setting and implementing the health requirement in accordance with the Act, the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), and DIAC's own guidelines.

The audit objective was to assess Health's administration of primary care funding, with a focus on the administrative practices of the Primary Care Division and Health's State and Territory Offices. In forming an opinion on the audit objective, the ANAO reviewed 41 agreements, with a combined value of $252 million. The ANAO also reviewed relevant documentation and files, interviewed programme officers and met with a number of stakeholders. The audit comments on a range of issues, including the utility of funding agreements, monitoring, payments, and support for administrators.

This audit is the first time that the ANAO has looked at superannuation payments to independent contractors. The audit examined whether Commonwealth organisations were identifying contracts that were wholly or principally for the labour of the contractor and meeting statutory superannuation obligations under the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988.

The audit examined the financial management of all Special Appropriations in the period 1998-99 to 2002-03, with the exception of those related to Special Accounts and those administered by Government Business Enterprises. The audit objectives were to: identity all Special Appropriations and ascertain which entities are responsible for their financial management and reporting; and assess entities' financial management and reporting of Special Appropriations against the Commonwealth's financial management and reporting frameworks.

The objective of the current audit was to assess Army's progress in implementing the ANAO recommendations and to examine and assess any developments in relation to AIRN since the 1999?2000 audit report and the 2001 JCPAA report. Army updated AIRN policy in 2001 and 2004, and the ANAO has assessed, where appropriate, the implementation of the 1999?2000 audit recommendations for these two policy reissues.

The objective of the audit was to assess the Department of Health and Ageing’s (DoHA’s) implementation and ongoing management of the Aged Care Complaints Scheme and the effectiveness of DoHA’s complaint management systems in supporting service delivery and regulatory outcomes.

The audit objective was to form an opinion on the adequacy of a select group of Australian Government agencies' management of Internet security, including following-up on agencies' implementation of recommendations from the ANAO's 2001 audit. The agencies audited were Australian Customs Service (ACS), Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) and Medicare Australia. Factors considered in selecting agencies were agency size based on funding levels, whether the agency was included in ANAO's 2001 audit (ACS, ARPANSA, and DEWR), whether the agency's ICT was managed in-house or outsourced, and the nature of the agency's website (that is, general or restricted access).

The objectives of the audit were to:determine whether entities had established effective internal control frameworks and processes to mitigate the risks associated with FBT obligations and transactions;assess whether the internal control frameworks and processes supported the payment of FBT and the reporting of reportable fringe benefit amounts (RFBAs) on employee payment summaries in accordance with the legislation;identify sound and better practices in the administration, management and operation of systems for collecting, collating, calculating, reporting and remitting FBT; and as necessary, recommend improvements in the controls and practices relating to the administration of FBT in the audited entities.

The objective of the audit was to examine if AFMA is effectively undertaking its regulatory compliance responsibilities in respect of domestic fishing in Commonwealth fisheries. Particular emphasis was
given to:

• the licensing of fishers and related transaction processing;
• the management of fishing quota by concession holders and AFMA; AFMA's domestic compliance monitoring and
• enforcement activities; and the governance arrangement for domestic fishing compliance.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DIT’s and Centrelink’s¹ administration of TFES.

^[1] From 1 July 2011, Centrelink became a master program within DHS.