The Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program (PIIP) is a scheme that was introduced to compensate the pharmaceutical industry, in part, for the impact of the Government exercising its monopsony power under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The ANAO undertook an audit of the probity of the methodology and procedures applied by the Department in assessment of applicants for PIIP funding. The objectives of the audit were to assist the Department, at its request, in the timely identification of deficiencies in assessing responses from applicants and options for addressing any such deficiencies.

The purpose of the audit was to assess whether management of parliamentary workflow by the agencies reviewed was efficient and effective and to identify elements of good practice. In assessing agency effectiveness and efficiency, the audit focussed on issues of client service such as timeliness, quality and cost. It considered also the governance framework and accountability arrangements relevant to parliamentary workflow, as well as more operational considerations including the use of information technology, development of relevant management information and suitable benchmarking processes.

This was a follow-up of Audit Report No. 29 2000-01, Review of Veterans' Appeals Against Disability Compensation Entitlement Decisions. That audit examined the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA's) and the Veterans' Review Board's (VRB's) management of the review of decisions for disability compensation. The objective of this audit was to assess the extent to which DVA and the VRB had implemented the four recommendations of Report No.29 2000-01, taking into account any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting implementation of these recommendations.

The objective of the audit was to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and administrative effectiveness of the risk management process in the Small Business Income business line. It follows Audit Report No.37 1996-97 and entitled Risk Management - Australian Taxation Office. That audit focused on broad strategic issues relevant to risk management in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a whole. This audit follows the issues identified in that report into the day-to-day management of the Small Business Income as an example of how risk management operates in a significant element of the ATO.

The objective of this follow up audit was to examine Customs' implementation of the eight recommendations in the ANAO Report No.16 2004–05 and the two related recommendations from JCPAA Report 404. The audit has had regard to issues affecting the implementation of the recommendations and has taken into account changed circumstances and new administrative arrangements since the previous audit.

The audit objective was to form an opinion on the effectiveness of the NHMRC's grant administration. To meet this objective the NHMRC was assessed against four criteria:

• the NHMRC's governance arrangements provide appropriate accountability that it is meeting its objectives and obligations to Government (Chapter 2);
• there are strategic and systematic processes for developing and implementing grant programs (Chapter 3);
• the NHMRC manages grants post-award effectively, and complies with legislative requirements and program directives (Chapters 4 and 5); and
• the NHMRC monitors and evaluates its business to demonstrate that outcomes are being met (Chapter 6).

As an element of the arrangements implemented to support the role of the ANAO in reviewing campaigns' compliance with the Guidelines announced on 2 July 2008, the ANAO advised the chair of the JCPAA that the ANAO will provide regular summary reports to Parliament. Section 25 of the Auditor-General's Act 1997 provides for the tabling of such reports.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Department of Infrastructure and Transport’s and the Attorney‐General’s Department’s management of the Aviation and Maritime Security Identification Card (ASIC and MSIC) schemes.

The objective of this benchmarking study of the finance function was to obtain and report on over time, quantitative and qualitative data, relating to finance function activities as they operate in Commonwealth organisations. Over the three year period of the study, the majority of participating Commonwealth organisations have shown an improvement in their quantitative and/or qualitative benchmark results across the range of finance function activities. The Report does not provide specific reasons for differences in performance. However, it does provide guidance as to some of the better practices that participating organisations, and the wider public sector, may wish to adopt, or adapt in order to achieve improved performance in the activities of the finance function.

The objective of this follow-up audit was to examine the ATO's implementation of the 20 recommendations in: The Administration of Petroleum Excise Collections (Audit Report No.17, 2001(02); and The Administration of Tobacco Excise (Audit Report No. 55, 2001(02), having regard to any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting implementation of those recommendations. The audit also aimed to identify scope for improvement in the ATO's administration of petroleum and tobacco excise. Follow-up audits are recognised as an important element of the accountability processes of Commonwealth administration. The Parliament looks to the Auditor-General to report, from time to time, on the extent to which Commonwealth agencies have implemented recommendations of previous audit reports. Follow-up audits keep the Parliament informed of progressive improvements and current challenges in areas of Commonwealth administration that have previously been subject to scrutiny through performance audits.

The audit assessed whether FaCS effectively undertakes its coordination, monitoring and other roles according to the CSTDA. The audit examined all disability services provided for under the CSTDA, except for disability employment services. The ANAO met relevant officers from FaCS' national office and State and Territory offices, and with 22 stakeholder organisations including: advocacy groups; peak national and State bodies representing the interests of disability service providers and people with disabilities; members of national and State Disability Advisory Bodies funded by FaCS; State and Territory governments; relevant Australian Government agencies; In particular, the Department of Health and Ageing and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. and local government bodies. Fieldwork for the audit was primarily undertaken during the period September 2004 to February 2005.

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 the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of the CCAS. The audit focused on the following key areas: targeting non-compliance; real time compliance activity; post transaction compliance activity; and planning and performance evaluation. As the imports phase of the Integrated Cargo System (ICS) was only introduced in October 2005, this system was not reviewed as part of the audit. Our audit programme for 2005–06 includes ICS as a potential audit topic.

New transactional banking arrangements for FMA agencies came into effect on 1 July 1999. The audit reviewed selected agencies' implementation and ongoing management of contractual banking arrangements; agencies' tendering for the procurement of banking services; and identified practises that have improved administrative arrangements. The audit examined Finance's role in planning and implementing the new arrangements as well as implementation in the Australian Customs Service (Customs) the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DTRS), the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA).

This audit followed up the ANAO's 1999 performance audit report on the Commonwealth's planning and response mechanisms to deal with exotic and new endemic pest and emergencies in the animal and plant sectors (Audit Report No 9 1999-2000 Managing Pest and Disease Emergencies). The previous audit made nine recommendations to improve planning and response strategies for emergencies; better coordination; diagnostic support; and appropriate monitoring and surveillance. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess AFFA's implementation of the recommendations, and whether implementation of these recommendations, or appropriate alternative measures, has improved the Commonwealth's planning and response strategies for pest and disease emergencies. The ANAO also observed and assessed relevant parts of the September 2002 foot and mouth disease simulation, Exercise Minotaur.

The Age Pension is Australia's largest social security programme delivering approximately $22 billion to 1.9 million Australians in 2005-06. The Age Pension programme is administered by Centrelink on behalf of its client agency the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Centrelink's administration of complex assessments of customer entitlements for the Age Pension programme, particularly through the use of Complex Assessment Officers.

The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Medicare Australia's administration of the PBS. In assessing the objective, the audit considered three key areas:

• Medicare Australia's relationship with the PBS policy agency (DoHA) and service delivery policy agency (Department of Human Services (DHS));
• the management arrangements and processes underpinning Medicare Australia's delivery of the PBS (including the means by which Medicare Australia gains assurance over the integrity of the PBS); and
• how Medicare Australia undertakes its three main responsibilities relating to the delivery of the PBS, namely: approving pharmacies; approving authority prescriptions; and processing PBS claims.

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.

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.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of SEWPaC’s management of the IPA program in relation to the two primary targets of the IPA program under the Caring for our Country initiative (2008–13) which are to:

• expand the contribution of the IPA program to the NRS by between eight and 16 million hectares (an increase of at least 40 per cent), of which 1.8 million hectares are to be in northern and remote Australia; and
• ensure the continued use, support and reinvigoration of traditional ecological knowledge to underpin biodiversity conservation in the Plans of Management of 32 newly initiated projects.

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.

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.

The objective of this audit was to ascertain whether Defence performance management strategies and practices contribute to the effective and efficient management of the supply chain. In particular, it focussed on examining the extent to which the latter demonstrate identified world-class practices.

The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the GBM initiative, and the extent to which the initiative has contributed to improvements in community engagement and government coordination in the Northern Territory.

The audit focused on FaHCSIA's management of the GBM initiative under the NTER. The audit scope did not include additional functions assigned to some GBMs in the Northern Territory under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (the National Partnership Agreement), or to Australian Government staff with similar roles and functions supporting the implementation of the National Partnership Agreement in Queensland and Western Australia.

The audit reviewed the implementation of the purchaser/provider arrangements between the Department of Health and Aged Care and Centrelink. The objective of the audit was to determine the administrative effectiveness of the implementation of the service delivery arrangements between Centrelink and the Department by examining project planning for, and management of, the implementation, and the establishment of on-going purchaser/provider arrangements.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Health and Ageing's support for improved access to integrated GP and primary healthcare services through its administration of the Primary Care Infrastructure Grants (PCIG) program.

The audit reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of Defence's management of Naval Aviation Force (NAF) in achieving its required capability within budgeted resources. The objectives of the audit were to assess whether planning, management and resource allocation mechanisms and practices for NAF were conducive to achieving the latter's objectives in a cost-effective manner.

The objective of the audit was to determine whether the POI information recorded by Centrelink accords with relevant policy and thereby effectively supports informed decision-making regarding eligibility for the payment of various benefits to Centrelink customers

The objective of the audit was to assess the ATO's strategies to address tax evasion in the cash economy, with emphasis on: the ATO's strategic focus; aspects of governance, management processes and compliance activities; and responses to the ANAO Report No.35 2001–02 ATO Progress in Addressing the Cash Economy.

The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of explosive ordnance by the end users of this materiel in Air Force, Army and Navy (the Services). In particular, the focus was on the effectiveness of arrangements for the oversight and physical control of explosive ordnance once it is issued to Service units.

The audit reviewed Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and inventory management systems for explosive ordnance at the unit level in the ADF, from receipt and storage through to the use or return of explosive ordnance.The audit also examined the relationship between the management of explosive ordnance at the unit level and the Explosive Ordnance Services Contract and, where relevant, the regional Garrison Support Services (GSS) Contracts.