The objective of the audit was to report on the progress of the current phase of the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Program, which is known as SEA 4000 Phase 3–Build. This phase commenced in June 2007, and covers the finalisation of the detailed design, the signing of the Alliance and Platform System Design contracts, and the construction and delivery of the ships by the Industry Participants to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO).

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the design and management of the National Solar Schools Program (NSSP), including demonstrated progress towards achieving the program's objectives.

The objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which entities were meeting their recordkeeping responsibilities. In particular, the audit examined how effectively the entities were managing records that were created and stored electronically in corporate recordkeeping systems and in other electronic systems in accordance with recordkeeping requirements.

The audit objective was to assess the extent to which Australian Government agencies ensure that service providers are made aware of the core Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct and these arrangements are monitored.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Fixing Houses for Better Health program since 2005.

The audit reviewed the two elements of the program for which FaHCSIA is responsible: management of the service delivery arrangements and overall performance monitoring and reporting. Following the development of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which introduced new approaches to the delivery of Indigenous programs, FaHCSIA made changes to FHBH for the 2009–11 phase. The audit has focused on both the 2005–09 and the 2009–11 phases. This provided coverage of the program's normal operations as well enabling the audit to consider the modifications made to the program for the
2009–11 phase.

Against this background, the audit considered whether:

• program management arrangements had been established that were suitable for the size, nature and objectives of the FHBH program;
• service delivery arrangements were designed to support the achievement of the program's objectives and FaHCSIA's management of the program; and
• FaHCSIA used robust systems to monitor achievement of the program objectives.

The ANAO also considered whether there was any experience from the department's management of FHBH that could be broadly applied to FaHCSIA's management of the National Partnership Agreement.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA’s administration of the HAF. To address this objective, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) assessed FaHCSIA’s administration against a range of audit criteria, including the extent to which:

• assessment and approval processes were soundly planned and implemented, and were consistent with the requirements of the overarching financial management framework;
• appropriately structured funding agreements were established and managed for each approved grant; and
• the performance of the HAF, including each of the funded projects, was actively monitored and reported.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of security awareness and training arrangements at selected Australian Government organisations, including whether they addressed selected security issues from the PSM.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of AusAID’s management of infrastructure aid to Indonesia, with a particular focus on the Eastern Indonesia National Roads Improvement Project and the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative.

The objective of the audit was to report on the effectiveness of Defence’s approach to the acceptance into service of Navy capability, and to identify where better practice may be used by CDG, DMO and Navy.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Centrelink's approach to investigating and responding to external fraud. The ANAO's assessment was based on four key criteria. In particular, the ANAO assessed whether Centrelink:

• had established a management framework, business systems and guidelines, that support the investigation, prosecution and reporting of fraud;
• had implemented appropriate case selection strategies and controls to ensure resources are targeted to the cases of highest priority;
• complied with relevant external and internal requirements when investigating fraud and referring cases for consideration of prosecution; and
• had implemented an effective training program that supports high quality investigations and prosecution referrals.