The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DoHA's management of CACPs in fulfilling the legislated objectives of the program.

The objective of the audit was to form an opinion on ATSIC's management of the Municipal Services component of the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP). The audit examined how effectively ATSIC specifies and implements its role, the adequacy with which it identifies relative needs for support from the program among Indigenous communities, and how it leverages improved outcomes from other potential funding sources.

The objective of the audit was to determine the extent to which the new employment services market had been implemented effectively and efficiently in accordance with announced Government policy and timeframe.

The audit reviewed the corporate governance framework of the Australian Electoral Commisson (AEC). The objective of the audit was to review whether the AEC's corporate governance framework was sound.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DoHA’s administration in supporting the creation and development of health infrastructure from the HHF, including DoHA’s support for the Health Minister and the HHF Advisory Board.

While recognising the diversity of administrative requirements for different special payments, the audit provides a basis for comparison of performance across 14 different agencies in 1997-98 and progress made since the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts report 342 The administration of specific purpose payments. The objectives of the audit were to:

• identify and benchmark current practices in the management of performance information within SPP agreements;
• document the lessons learned including better practice from different agencies;
• provide a longitudinal analysis of progress since 1995; and
• provide practical guidance for the development and implementation of appropriate performance information systems and accountability.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DIMIA's management of its detention agreements with ACM to operate Australia's mainland immigration detention centres. In particular, the ANAO examined: DIMIA's strategic approach to the management and coordination of the contract; how DIMIA defined the services to be delivered by ACM; the systems in place to monitor and report against contract performance; the effectiveness of controls over contract payment arrangements; and DIMIA's management of infrastructure through the detention agreements.

The audit examined the ATO's management of its relationship with tax practitioners (tax agents and the wider group of professionals working on taxation matters for clients). However, our main focus was the ATO's management of its relationship with tax agents because they are the core element of the tax practitioner grouping and their role is fundamental to the effective operation of the tax system. The objective of the audit was to assess how well the ATO manages its relationship with tax practitioners, focussing on selected ATO relationships with tax practitioners, in particular its regulatory relationship with tax agents, its service support relationship with tax agents and its relationship with tax agents and members of the wider tax practitioner group in the professional bodies as key stakeholders in tax administration.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Scheme is being administered effectively by the department. The ANAO focussed on Program Year 1 of the Scheme, 2005–06, and examined DIISR's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of entities to receive grants;
• assessing entities' claims for eligible expenditure;
• adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme when calculating and paying claims, and managing any debts that arise;
• and evaluating and reporting on whether the statutory objective of the Scheme is being met.

The audit did not examine the other components of the 2005–2015 industry assistance package; nor did it examine any of the programs delivered under the previous assistance package (2000–2005).

This benchmarking study across 14 agencies examined how line managers plan for and manage their staff and how the human resource (HR) function supports them to do that. People management was categorised into nine, practice areas, to enable comparisons between the participating agencies. The study also assessed each people management practice area against four criteria: quality, HR integration, effectiveness & efficiency and business contribution.