An ANAO audit of AQIS' cost-recovery systems was conducted in 2000-01 (Audit Report No 10, 2000-01), following a request from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA). That audit aimed to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of AQIS' cost-recovery systems, and provide assurance to Parliament that cost-recoverable programs were identifying and recovering the full costs of services provided, without cross-subsidisation. The ANAO made six recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of AQIS cost-recovery systems. The JCPAA, at a subsequent hearing, made a further three recommendations. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess AQIS' implementation of the ANAO and the JCPAA recommendations. The audit also aimed to determine whether implementation of these recommendations, or alternative actions taken to address the issues leading to the recommendations, had improved AQIS' management of its cost-recovery processes.

The audit examined the administrative effectiveness of arrangements between Health and HIC, in relation to the management and administration of the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Health predominantly exercises a policy and leadership role within the health portfolio - HIC delivers a range of health services directly to the public and members of the health industry. Both agencies have stated that they recognise the importance of working together, as partners in their respective roles, to maximise their performance in the achievement of health portfolio outcomes and to discharge their respective responsibilities. This joint commitment is embodied in a written agreement - called the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA).

The objective of this audit was to assess whether DEWR had implemented ESC3 and its computer system EA3000, efficiently and effectively. The primary focus is on the period of change from the previous employment services contract to ESC3 and the first full year of its operation, 2003-04. The scope of the audit was limited to the implementation of Job Network services under ESC3, the introduction of the supporting computer application, EA3000, and DEWR's use of modelling to estimate the effects of the APM. The audit did not test the effectiveness of the APM. DEWR has a plan to evaluate the new model. A separate, concurrent ANAO audit assessed DEWR's oversight of Job Network services to job seekers.

On 9 May 2006, the Auditor-General advised the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services that he would undertake a performance audit and that the specific audit objectives and approach would be established once officers of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) had the opportunity to undertake preliminary enquiries with senior staff in Airservices Australia and the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). On 31 May 2006, the Auditor-General designated a performance audit under Section 18 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 (Auditor-General Act). The objectives of the performance audit were to: examine the development and administration by Airservices Australia of its contracts with the Solomon Islands Government for upper airspace management; assess the regularity of payments made under the contracts and steps taken by Airservices Australia in respect of any irregularities; and make recommendations for any improvements in the processes employed by Airservices Australia in developing and administering these and similar contractual arrangements.

In 1997, and subsequently in 1999, the Australian Government introduced two major spending packages with a total value of almost $1 billion. These spending packages were designed to address the challenges posed by the issue of climate change and to meet Australia's domestic and international commitments. Since its inception in 1998, the Australian Greenhouse Office has been responsible for the implementation of greenhouse related programs from these two major spending packages. The objective of the audit was to examine and report on the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of seven major programs administered by the Australian Greenhouse Office.

The Commonwealth electoral roll is managed by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and lists the names and addresses of people entitled to vote in federal elections. The objectives of the audit were twofold. The first objective was to provide an opinion on the integrity of the electoral roll, for the purpose of the audit, integrity was defined as accuracy, completeness, validity and security. The second objective was to examine the effectiveness of the AEC's management of the electoral roll in ensuring the roll's integrity.

The objective of the audit, in examining the construction of the CIIDC, was to assess:

• the adequacy of the planning and delivery processes for the project;
• the value-for-money achieved in the delivery of the project, including with regard to the suitability of the centre for its intended purpose; and
• the extent to which the Public Works Committee Act.

The audit objectives were to examine the extent to which selected TSB2 and TSI Response programs: are achieving or had achieved their objectives; and had been administered effectively by DCITA according to better practice principles. To evaluate this aspect, the audit assessed DCITA's compliance with the better practice principles outlined in the Administration of Grants Better Practice Guide (May 2002) produced by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). There are 19 separate principles covered under the broad areas of: Planning for effective grant programs; Selecting projects; Managing and monitoring funding deeds; and Evaluating and reporting grant program performance.

The objective of this audit was: to form an opinion on the adequacy of selected agencies' approaches to monitoring and evaluation of government programs and services delivered on the Internet; and to identify better practices and opportunities for improvement. In order to achieve this objective, the audit examined the websites and Internet-delivered services of five agencies.

This second audit report relating to SMSFs examines the effectiveness of the Tax Office's approach to managing SMSF compliance risks. Specifically the ANAO examined the processes the Tax Office uses to:

• identify the risks relevant to SMSFs not complying with their obligations under the SISA, including members accessing their superannuation early;
• mitigate SMSF compliance risks; and
• administer fund wind-ups.