The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Project Wickenby taskforce in making Australia unattractive for international tax fraud and evasion by detecting, deterring and dealing with the abusive use of secrecy havens by Australian taxpayers.

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 primary objective of this audit was to review the management and administration of travel undertaken by public sector employees to determine whether, and to what extent, it complied with approved policies and procedures. The other objective of this audit, as with all across-the-board FCA audits, is to identify, develop and report better practices. The audit dealt with short-term travel by Commonwealth public sector employees on official business.

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 were to assess the extent to which agencies' performance management systems, strategies and plans are consistent with the strategic framework set out in the Managment Advisory Committee Report; provide assurance that the administration of performance managment is being implemented efficiently and effectively in accordance with better practice principles; provide assurance that performance linked remuneration reported in anual reports complies with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Requirements for Annual Reports; and quantify the cost of performance linked remuneration, both performance bonuses and performance linked advancements (salary increments), across the APS.

The objective of the audit was to assess and report on the progress being made by agencies subject to the Financial Management & Accountability Act 1997 and entities subject to the Commonwealth Authorities & Companies Act 1997: in realising value for money from the procurement process, with a specific focus on buildings, services and products using whole of life cycle assessments; and in the consideration and management of environmental impacts in specifications and contracts. The emphasis of the audit was on green office procurement and sustainable business practices and the value for money within this context. As such, the audit report provides a status report on the implementation of ESD within the office environment of the Australian Government. The audit used a survey approach in conjunction with selected audit investigations to obtain information across 71 agencies and entities selected on the basis of materiality in procurement and coverage across large, medium and small organisations. The agencies selected represented approximately 35 per cent of all government bodies and over 95 per cent of all procurement spending noted on the Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) database on contracts.

In April 2002, the ANAO tabled Audit Report No.40 2001-02 Corporate Governance in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ( the 2002 audit). In August 2003, the ABC submitted a report to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) on its progress in implementing the recommendations from the 2002 audit and the JCPAA report. This follow-up audit examined the ABC's implementation of recommendations from both reports, using the ABC's progress report as its base.

The objective of this audit was to follow up DVA's implementation of the recommendations in Audit Report No. 44, 2000-01, Information Technology in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The ANAO made two recommendations in the report (the second having five parts). The recommendations addressed the monitoring of IT changes; IT performance information; information systems model documentation; and the facilitation of the interpretation of performance information.

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 objective was to assess whether the Regional Partnerships Programme has been effectively managed by DOTARS, including the processes by which:

• applications are sought, received and assessed;
• Funding Agreements with grant recipients are developed and managed; and
• the achievement of project and programme outcomes is monitored and assessed.

The audit reviewed the construction of facilities for the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence by the Defence Estate Organisation. The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of the Organisation's project delivery function, highlighting effective practice and, where appropriate, making practical recommendations to enhance facilities project management. The main projects examined were the facilities required for the Army Presence in the North and the Russell Hill Redevelopment.

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.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Department of Defence's management of its public communications and media activities.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Defence’s arrangements for monitoring and reporting explosive ordnance and weapons security incidents.

The objective of this audit was to review the effectiveness of Defence's and the DMO's management of the acquisition arrangements for JP 2070.

The objective of this audit was to assess the extent to which the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Agriculture) has addressed the recommendations from ANAO Audit Report No. 46 of 2011–12, Administration of the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS).

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Public Seminar Series, Graduate Program in Public Policy, 'Democratic Governance: Improving the Institutions of Accountability', The Australian National University

Recent performance audit priority for the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio has been directed at the administration of funding for land transport. Accordingly, this audit is one of a series ANAO is undertaking of land transport funding programs. Four audits have already been completed, namely:

• ANAO Audit Report No. 31 2005–06, Roads to Recovery;
• ANAO Audit Report No. 45 2006–07, The National Black Spot Program;
• ANAO Audit Report No. 22 2007–08, Administration of Grants to the Australian Rail Track Corporation; and
• ANAO Audit Report No. 29 2008–09, Delivery of Projects on the AusLink National Network.

The Australian Diplomatic Communications Network was developed to provide a secure communication and automation capability for domestic offices and overseas posts. The audit focussed on project management of the ADCNET project, and in particular:

• how effectively the ADCNET project was managed;
• how effectively project risks were managed; and
• the extent to which project management processes have established whether ADCNET meets the specifications set by, and the expectations held by, DFAT, as well as any lessons to be learnt for this and other future projects.

The Auditor-General responded on 16 January 2024 to correspondence from Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie dated 22 December 2023, requesting that the Auditor-General to conduct an audit into the Australian Government's $2.2 billion commitment to the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop Project.

Grant Hehir, Auditor-General for Australia, presented at the Australian National Centre for Audit & Assurance Research (ANCAAR) 15th ANCAAR Audit Research Forum on 1 December 2017.

The Department of the Treasury (the Treasury) manages Australia's relations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and various development banks. As of
30 June 2006, the Treasury's administered assets in the IMF and other international financial institutions totalled A$7.1 billion. Liabilities totalled A$4.8 billion. In addition to the liabilities of A$4.8 billion, there were contingent liabilities of A$7.3 billion, comprising uncalled share capital subscriptions.

In October 2002 a performance audit of the Treasury's management of international financial commitments (ANAO Audit Report No.10 of 2002–03 Treasury's Management of International Financial Commitments) was tabled in the Parliament. This audit is a follow-up to that audit. The objective was to assess the progress made by the Treasury in addressing the four major audit findings and two recommendations of the 2002 audit report.

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 objective of this performance audit was to assess whether DIMIA's information systems and business processes are effective in supporting APP to meet its border security and streamlined clearance objectives. In particular, the audit focused on the following: Mandatory APP - Stage 1 (MAPP1) project management; MAPP1 IT development and system performance; APP performance reporting; contract management; and financial management.

The objective of the follow-up audit was to report on the action taken by the Australian Customs Service to address the recommendations of the 1996 Audit Report. The audit also reviewed key areas of the Passenger Movement Charge administration identified in the 1996 audit, including the appropriateness of formal arrangements between the ACS and Regular Public Transport airlines and assessed the proposed arrangements being developed by the ACS. The arrangements with RPT airlines were a particular focus in the follow-up report (as they were in the 1996 Audit Report), because of the significance of that category of carrier in revenue terms

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the administration of the National Black Spot Programme. It was undertaken in a manner similar to the audit of the Roads to Recovery Programme. Specifically, the audit approach involved:

• examination of DOTARS records and discussions with officers in DOTARS and four of the State road transport authorities responsible for administering the Programme;
• analysis of project monitoring, reporting and payment arrangements; and
• selecting a sample of 45 LGA areas across four States so that ANAO could examine projects delivered with Commonwealth funding.

The audit objective was to examine whether Airservices Australia has effective procurement arrangements in place, with a particular emphasis on whether consultancy contracts entered into with International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) in association with the OneSKY Australia project were effectively administered.

This report complements the interim phase report released in June 2013 (Audit Report No.49 2012–13), and provides a summary of the final audit results of the audits of the financial statements of all Australian Government entities, including the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Australian Government.

The audit objective was to examine the efficiency of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' (CDPP's) case management.

The audit objective was to examine the effectiveness of the department's establishment of the P21 element of the BER program. The focus of the audit was on: the establishment of administrative arrangements for BER P21 in accordance with government policy; the assessment and approval of funding allocations; and the arrangements to monitor and report BER P21 progress and achievement of broader program outcomes. An examination of individual BER P21 projects was outside the scope of the audit.