The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) was established on 1 July 1998 as the prudential regulator of banks and other authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs), life insurance companies (including friendly societies), general insurance companies, superannuation funds and retirement savings accounts. ANAO's objectives for this audit were to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of APRA's prudential supervision of banks. Prudential supervision aims to protect depositors by ensuring that financial institutions adopt prudent risk management practices designed to ensure their continuing solvency and liquidity. APRA is a relatively new organisation, established in July 1998 and becoming responsible for prudential supervision of all ADIs from July 1999. ANAO concluded that there are steps APRA can take in a number of areas to improve its supervisory practices, including improving the administration of the ADI supervisory levy; strengthening its risk management approach; and maintaining closer adherence to international standards for prudential supervision issued by the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision. ANAO made five recommendations concerning administration of levies, risk-based supervision and supervision of cross-border banking. APRA agreed, or agreed with qualifications, to all recommendations, as well as agreeing with the overall audit conclusions.

On 2 November 2000, the Senate agreed to a resolution that the Auditor-General be requested to review all expenditures and entitlements accruing to Parliamentarians and Ministers in 1999-2000. The resolution requested that the Auditor-General consider a number of specific matters, and report by 30 June 2001. In the course of that audit, examination of issues relating to Parliamentarians' staff was deferred in order to give the Auditor-General a reasonable chance of reporting reasonably close to the Senate's requested reporting timeframe. ANAO Audit Report No.5 2001-02, Parliamentarians' Entitlements: 1999-2000, was tabled in the Parliament in August 2001. A proposed audit of the administration by Finance of the entitlements of staff engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) Act was included in the ANAO Audit Work Program for 2001-02. The objectives of this performance audit were to: review the effectiveness of the internal control structures in the Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) concerning the administration of entitlements for MOP(S) Act staff; review the effectiveness and efficiency of the procurement and support services Finance provides in relation to MOP(S) Act staff: and identify principles of sound administrative practices to facilitate improved administrative arrangements for the future. The audit covered Finance's administration of payments and services to MOP(S) Act staff during the period 1998-99 to 2001-02. Sub-section 15(c) of the Auditor General Act 1997 precludes an audit of persons who are engaged under the MOP(S) Act. Accordingly, the audit scope did not include examination of the responsibilities of MOP(S) Act staff.

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.

The objectives of the audit were to:

• examine Customs' management of the CMR project; and
• determine whether the ICS and CCF met:
  • project and operational objectives; and
  • user capability and functionality requirements.

Particular emphasis was given to the following areas:

• the project management framework that supported the CMR project;
• implementation arrangements for the ICS; and
• ongoing operational arrangements.

After this audit commenced, Customs engaged Booz Allen Hamilton to undertake a separate review of the ICS. The purpose of that review was to provide Customs with a forward looking report on the lessons to be learned from the implementation of the ICS, its current status and the opportunities to enhance benefits for both Government and industry. The ANAO consulted closely with the Booz Allen Hamilton team and is supportive of the recommendations in their report, which was released in May 2006. The review made thirteen recommendations relating to the ongoing management and governance of the Cargo Management Re-engineering Program at both strategic and tactical levels.

The audit examined agency approaches to the management of intellectual property under its control, and identified themes common to the management of all types of intellectual property. The audit objective was to:

(i) form an opinion on whether Commonwealth agencies have systems in place to efficiently, effectively and ethically manage their intellectual property assets; and

(ii) identify areas for better practice in intellectual property management by those agencies.

The objective of the audit was to assess the Commonwealth's administration of the grants component of the R&D Start program. Lessons for the new Commercial Ready program have been identified in the audit. Accordingly, recommendations arising from this audit are directed, when appropriate, to the Commercial Ready program. As most financial assistance is in the form of grants, the loans component of the program was excluded from the audit.

The audit reviewed the effectiveness of HIC's approach to customer service delivery to the Australian public as customers of Medicare. The primary issues examined were whether: . HIC manages its customer service delivery performance effectively;

• HIC's approach to people management adequately supports customer service delivery;
• HIC obtains adequate information from customers on their needs, expectations, and perceptions of HIC's service delivery; and
• HIC provides adequate information to customers on its services and on the service standards that customers should expect.

The objective of the audit was to assess the application of the outcomes and outputs framework in Australian Government agencies. The audit included a review of:

• the outcomes and outputs of agencies and the integration of the outcomes and outputs framework into agencies' operations;
• the extent to which agencies' performance indicators incorporated better practice characteristics to enable agencies to meet their performance reporting obligations;
• agencies' processes for capturing, monitoring and reporting financial and performance information and the extent to which outcomes and outputs information was used in agency decision-making; and
• the extent that agencies met their external reporting and accountability obligations.

The audit consisted of a survey of 44 agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) undertaken in October 2005 and detailed audit testing in three of those agencies. The purpose of the survey was to provide cross-agency data in relation to agencies' implementation of the framework during the period 2002–03 to 2005–06. The ANAO received responses from all 44 agencies, although not all agencies responded to all questions. The ANAO did not audit the information provided by survey participants and the reported results are based on agencies' responses to the survey.

The agencies at which detailed audit testing was undertaken were:

• Department of Education Science and Training;
• the then Department of the Environment and Heritage; and
• IP Australia.

The objectives of this audit were to improve: the accountability of the Australian Taxation Office to Parliament and the Government by the provision of advice that follows up on the ATO's implementation of the previous ANAO Report; and on the recommendations of the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts arising from its consideration of that Report and the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of debt collection by the ATO.

The Survey of Fraud Control Arrangements in APS agencies was conducted to identify improvements made by agencies since the 1999 survey, and in response to the revised Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines released in May 2002. Its objective was to assess the key aspects of fraud control arrangements in place across the APS against the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002.