The objective of this audit was to assess key aspects of the establishment and administration of HIP by DEWHA as well as the transition of the program to DCCEE. All phases of the program were examined with particular emphasis for Phase 2 being given to:

• program design and implementation;
• registration and training of installers;
• payment of rebates; and
• the compliance strategy underpinning the program.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of procedures and processes used by DEST and the ATO to record HECS–HELP student loans. To achieve this, the ANAO assessed the performance of DEST and the ATO against three criteria as follows:

• DEST monitored student contributions set by higher education providers for consistency with Australian Government policy;
• DEST paid HECS–HELP advance payments to higher education providers based on sound estimates, and recorded, reconciled and reported these payments; and
• the ATO has established procedures and processes to correctly record HECS–HELP loans against student tax records.

The overall objective of the audit was to assess whether the RSS Programme is effective and efficient in providing assurance on the levels of payment error and the resultant risks to the integrity of Australian Government outlays for payments administered by Centrelink. Specifically, the audit assessed whether: the RSS Programme meets the objectives outlined for it in the Portfolio Budget Statements under which funding was provided; there is an adequate methodology underpinning the RSS reviews; the RSS reviews are conducted effectively and efficiently, and adequate quality assurance mechanisms exist to assure the results obtained from the RSS reviews; and reporting by the agencies of the results of the RSS Programme is adequate and takes into consideration the issues identified in Audit Report No. 44 2002–03 Review of the Parenting Payment Single Program, and Audit Report No. 17 2002–03 Age Pension Entitlements.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of Tourism Australia's governance arrangements, the management of its marketing contracts, and whether outcomes are being achieved. The audit reviewed Tourism Australia's:

• procurement processes for selecting service providers;
• management of service provider contracts; and
• governance framework including planning, performance management and reporting.

The objective of this audit was to assess the efficiency¹ and effectiveness of the establishment, implementation and administration of the bike paths component of the Local Jobs stream of the Jobs Fund. A particular focus was on the establishment of program objectives and the extent to which approved grants have demonstrably contributed to the cost-effective achievement of those objectives. The audit approach has been influenced by recent audits of grants administration which have emphasised the importance of transparent and accountable grant decision-making processes to the cost effective achievement of stated program objectives, and having regard for recent government decisions to enhance the framework applying to the administration of grants.

As an economic stimulus program, efficiency was assessed with particular attention to whether the application, assessment, decision-making and funding agreement processes were undertaken in a timely manner. This emphasis was consistent with the criterion adopted by the Government for the design of the stimulus packages established in response to the global financial crisis (see further at paragraph 4.20 of the audit report).

Directly after the collapse of Ansett in September 2001, most of its estimated 15 000 employees faced the possibility of retrenchment The Government immediately announced the introduction of the Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett group employees (SEESA) to address two risks facing the employees:

• the risk-to a certain limit - of a shortfall in their payments of accrued employee entitlements from Ansett and,
• the risk of delay in their being paid.

The objective of the audit was to determine how efficiently and effectively the two key elements of SEESA were managed: DEWR's management of the mechanism for making SEESA payments and DOTARS' management of the associated Air Passenger Ticket Levy.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DEWR's administration of the JSKA in ensuring its optimal usage in achieving job seeker outcomes. The ANAO examined the following aspects of the JSKA: guidance provided to Job Network Members on its operation; identification and assessment of contract risks; management of contract risks and Job Network Member performance; claims and payments; encouraging economy; and performance information.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Australia’s arrangements to meet its treaty obligations under three selected treaties:

• International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001;
• Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 and Additional Protocol; and
• Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990.

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.

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether: citizenship services were planned based on a risk assessment, especially in relation to fraud; and were monitored and reported on appropriately; decision-making was accurate, consistent and in line with relevent laws and policies and was supported by appropriate training and quality assurance (QA) mechanisms; client and outsourced services were managed effectively; and promotion strategies were effective and have been evaluated appropriately.

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).

The objective of this audit was to assess DAFF's management of the contractual arrangements in place to deliver the National Food Industry Strategy. The audit assessed: implementation of the Strategy; financial management;assessment and selection of grants and projects; management of grants and projects; monitoring and verification of contract services; and performance management. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) examined a number of FIG applications and projects, one food centre of excellence and a major project under the Food Market Development programme. The audit did not examine the Food Chain programme or DAFF's administration of the Strategy's government-to-government activities.

The audit examined key aspects of the first four tenders for the RtB program. These tenders provided coverage across the Basin and resulted in expenditure in excess of $1 billion. The 2008–09 tenders included the largest single purchase under the program—$303 million to Twynam Agricultural Group. The audit also examined the Commonwealth's contribution to the purchase of Toorale station, the only purchase outside a tender process.

Given the significant expenditure associated with the Super Seasprites, and the problems that the Project had encountered over some time, the ANAO had commenced this performance audit prior to the Government's decision to cancel the Project. The focus of the audit was on Defence's and DMO's administration of the Project. In light of the Government's decision to cancel the Project, the objective of the audit was revised to place greater emphasis on those issues that resulted in the failure of the Project to provide the required capability, and highlighting project management lessons for major Defence acquisitions going forward.Accordingly the audit objective was to:

• identify those factors that contributed to the on-going poor performance of the Project;
• outline measures taken by Defence and DMO in seeking to overcome issues encountered by the Project, and key lessons arising from this project for the benefit of major acquisitions projects generally; and
• determine the capability and cost implications of a project that failed to deliver to expectations.

The audit assessed FaHCSIA's management of AACAP and how the department monitors the contribution the program is making to the improvement of primary and environmental health, and living conditions, in remote Indigenous communities.

The audit examined program delivery under the 2006–2009 MoU, as well as the planning for the 2010 project under the variation to the 2006–2009 MoU. As part of the audit the ANAO considered:

• program strategy and implementation including the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders, community selection and scope of works (Chapter 2);
• the financial management of the program and the changing role of the Contracted Program Manager (Chapter 3); and
• performance measures, including FaHCSIA's performance reporting framework, and approach to monitoring and reporting performance against the stated program objectives (Chapter 4).

The audit focused on AACAP in so far as it relates to Indigenous community outcomes. It did not consider the program from the perspective of the Australian Defence Force capability building.

The objectives of the audit were to assess the Commonwealth's management of contractual rights and obligations under the Sale Agreements. In particular the audit sought to: assess the Commonwealth's management of contractual warranties and indemnities; assess DoTARS' management of each purchaser's compliance with contractual commitments to capital expenditure; and examine the effectiveness of the development and management of contractual arrangements for concessional rail passenger travel provided by the Commonwealth.

The audit focussed on the systems and processes OGTR has established for both receiving and assessing applications under the Act, and also for ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements through monitoring and inspection. The audit objective was to form an opinion on the discharge by OGTR of selected functions entrusted to it under the Act. The audit assessed the practices of OGTR against the following principal criteria: Assessment of applications under the Act: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for the management and assessment of applications under the Act. Ensuring compliance—monitoring, inspection and enforcement activities: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Act. Performance management: Whether OGTR manages selected aspects of its work efficiently and effectively. The audit did not seek to form an opinion on the appropriateness of the chosen structure of the regime for regulating gene technology or the merit of the scientific judgments involved. The audit methodology included discussions with representatives from agencies that co-ordinate aspects of the co-operative regulatory regime for gene technology across Australian jurisdictions, with various other stakeholders and users of the regime, as well as with officers of OGTR, along with examination of OGTR documents and files.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the implementation and administration of the AASC program by the ASC. The extent to which the ASC is able to determine that the program is achieving its objectives was also examined. Particular emphasis was given to the following areas:

• the implementation and the ongoing management of program; and
• the selection of sites and administration of grants funded under the program.

The elements of the Building a Healthy, Active Australia package undertaken by other agencies were not included in the scope of this audit.

The objective of the audit was to assess the ATO's administration of the Surcharge. Specifically, the audit sought to: report on the environment into which the Surcharge was introduced, including the legislative intent behind the Surcharge, and the current Surcharge environment; examine and report on aspects of Surcharge governance; assess the systems, processes and controls the ATO uses to: match Member Contributions Statements (MCS) data with income tax return data using Tax File Numbers (TFNs); process Surcharge information; and issue Surcharge liability assessments. assess the mechanisms the ATO uses to assess, classify, manage and rectify existing Surcharge exceptions, and prevent future exceptions from occurring; and examine the mechanisms and strategies the ATO uses to provide assurance that members and holders of contributions are complying with their Surcharge obligations.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Regional Australia’s management of the design and implementation of the first application round of the RDAF program.

The establishment of a new infrastructure program to fund projects identified by Regional Development Australia committees in regional areas was one of the initiatives established to deliver on the Government's September 2010 agreement with the Independent Members for Lyne and New England. The program was to fund projects that support the infrastructure needs and economic and community growth of Australia’s regions.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the WHM programme is administered effectively and in accordance with relevant laws and policies. In particular, the ANAO focused on four key areas: the implementation of eWHM visa; authority for the WHM programme; decision-making for WHM visas; and programme performance information. A feature of the audit was the computer-aided scrutiny of over 300 000 visa application records to test DIMA's decision-making processes.

The objective of this audit was to assess the provision of export assistance and support to new and irregular exporters in rural and regional Australia through the TradeStart program. The focus on rural and regional Australia reflects the priority given by the Government to providing effective business and trade assistance to small businesses and rural and regional businesses. However, broader aspects of TradeStart management, such as contract and risk management, have been assessed across the program as a whole.

This first Assurance Report on the status of selected Defence equipment acquisition projects, which has the support of the Parliament and the Government, represents a substantial step towards improving transparency and public accountability in major Defence procurement projects. It is the pilot of an annual Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Major Projects Report, and was developed in conjunction with the DMO. It covers the cost, schedule and capability progress achieved by nine DMO projects, which had an approved budget totalling $13.535 billion as at 30 June 2008.

This report is organised into three parts. Part 1 comprises an ANAO overview and Auditor–General's Foreword. Part 2 comprises the Major Projects Report prepared by DMO, including an overview reflecting DMO's perspective on their business and on the nine projects included in the. Part 3 incorporates the Auditor-General's Review Report, the statement by the CEO DMO, and the information prepared by DMO in the form of standardised Project Data Summary Sheets covering each of the nine pilot projects.

In the next 12 months, the ANAO will review 15 DMO projects planned for inclusion in the 2008-09 DMO Major Projects Report, with the number of projects rising to 30 projects in subsequent years. The ANAO will also work with DMO to refine the approach adopted for providing assurance on each project's progress toward achieving Final Operational Capability. The ANAO will also consider the inclusion of an analysis of each project's emerging trends, as appropriate, to complement DMO's intention to provide improved analysis of project management performance regarding all projects included in the Major Projects Report.

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 DFAT's management of the overseas leased estate. In particular, the audit examined whether DFAT:

• has effective governance, reporting and funding arrangements in place to support the sound management and oversight of the overseas leased estate;
• effectively manages overseas leased chancery and residential property on a day-to-day basis; and
• manages relationships with landlords and attached agencies effectively and adequately consults with stakeholders.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's management of the Settlement Grants Program. The ANAO assessed DIAC's performance in terms of how effectively it planned for funding rounds, assessed and allocated grants, monitored and evaluated the program, and managed relationships with its stakeholders. In doing so, the ANAO focused on SGP projects that received funding in the 2007–08.

The Acting Auditor-General responded on 11 May 2017, and the Auditor-General followed-up on 19 July 2017, to correspondence from Ms Cathy McGowan AO MP dated 10 April 2017. Ms McGowan had requested that the Auditor-General conduct an audit of the Regional Australia Impact Statement process, which is administered by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the management of maintenance of the Defence estate, taking particular account of planning and delivery aspects.

The audit examined: Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and supporting tools related to the planning and delivery of the maintenance of the estate; and services provided to Defence by private sector firms in relation to maintenance activities. The audit did not focus on contract management matters, nor on the systems used by Defence to maintain information related to estate maintenance.

The audit reviewed the Defence Materiel Organisation's management of the $3.43 billion Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) project. The Wedgetail project is to provide the Australian Defence Force with an AEW&C capability based on four Boeing 737 AEW&C aircraft and associated supplies and logistic support. At the time of the audit the AEW&C systems were still in their early development phase, and by November 2003, Defence had spent $1.107 billion on the project.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the selected entities:

• management of the delivery of projects awarded funding under four programmes where ANAO has previously audited the application assessment and selection processes; and
• development and implementation of evaluation strategies for each of those programmes.