The objective of this audit was to provide an independent assurance on the effectiveness of Defence's management of the acqusition of armoured infantry mobility vehicles (IMV) for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The audit sought to identify the initial capability requirements; analyse the tendering and evaluation process; and examine the management of the project by Defence. As such, this was not an audit of contractor performance, but of the formation and contract management of the aquisition project by Defence.

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.

The Senate Order for Departmental and Agency Contracts (the Senate Order/the Order) was introduced in June 2001. The Order is one of several measures that the Senate introduced in recent years, to improve public knowledge of information on procurement and the expenditure of public funds. The main principle that underpins the Senate Order is that the Parliament's and public's access to this information should not be restricted by the inclusion of confidential information in contracts unless there is a sound basis for doing so. Public knowledge of information on contracted goods and services delivered to the government, can lead to better results for the Australian Government and the public. The Senate Order requirements have been amended over time to improve agency reporting, for example, on grants.

The objective of the audit was to assess the management practices undertaken by APS agencies to achieve value for money and transparency in dealing with contracts for non-APS workers. The focus of the audit was on circumstances where agencies had a significant reliance on a non-APS workforce to assist in achieving their core functions. Regular reporting by agencies of expenditure on non-APS workers was outside the scope of this audit.

The audit sought to assess how well the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) manages aggressive tax planning. We did this by exploring the nature of aggressive tax planning and the ATO's approach to its management. In the latter context, we looked at:

• the ATO's previous experience with aggressive tax planning and action on previous significant external reviews, particularly dealing with mass marketed investment schemes;
• strategy and operations, intelligence gathering and use; and the identification and management of promoters given their significant role in aggressive tax planning.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tribunals' management of their operations. To this end, the audit examined whether the MRT and the RRT:

• have achieved intended operational efficiencies from the introduction of common facilities, services and resourcing;
• have established appropriate arrangements for governance, business planning and guidance of Members and staff, and for performance monitoring and reporting of Tribunal operations;
• finalise cases within Tribunal time and productivity standards; and
• provide applicants with services in accordance with service standards.

The audit covered Tribunal operations for review of visa decisions. The correctness of individual decisions was not assessed as part of the audit.

The audit focused particularly on developments in the Tribunals' management performance in the four year period from 2001–02 to 2004–05.

The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and the effectiveness of DEWR's administrative oversight for the WfD programme. The components of administration examined included whether:

• the operation of the WfD programme was guided by sound business planning including risk assessment;
• DEWR effectively and efficiently managed, monitored and reported the performance of CWCs in meeting contractual obligations;
• adequate support was provided to DEWR contract managers and account managers to assist in the delivery of WfD outcomes;
• there was evaluation of the performance of CWCs in delivering WfD objectives on behalf of the department;
• DEWR measures the effectiveness of WfD against programme objectives; and
• DEWR had implemented agreed recommendations from the previous WfD audit, where current and relevant.

The objectives of this audit were to:

• assess the current status of BCM and EM arrangements in Centrelink and identify opportunities for improvement; and
• review Centrelink's response to the recommendations.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Human Services' arrangements for engaging and managing External Collection Agencies to recover debts arising from Centrelink payments.

The objective of the audit was to assess the progress of the M113 Upgrade Project (Defence Project: Land 106), including progress in the development of operational capability resulting from the introduction of the upgraded vehicles into service. The high-level audit criteria used to assess the project’s progress and Defence’s effectiveness in administering the M113 Upgrade Project were:

• the degree to which the schedule for the production and delivery of upgraded M113 vehicles to Defence had been recovered in accordance with Defence’s response to the 2008–09 audit report and contractual requirements, as negotiated over the life of the contract;
• Defence’s measurement and allocation of the total cost of the upgrade project; and
• the development of capability arising from the upgrade project.