The current audit has focussed on Stage 2 of the Scheme. Its objective was to assess whether ACIS is being administered effectively by DIISR and, as relevant, by Customs. In particular, the audit examined the department's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of participants to receive duty credits;
• calculating duty credits accurately and adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme;
• checking the integrity of participants' claims, which are self-assessed;
• accounting for the duty credits transferred to and used at Customs; and
• measuring and reporting on the performance of ACIS.

The audit also followed up on whether the ANAO's previous recommendations have been addressed.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether entities properly accounted for software assets, and adopted an integrated planning approach to inform software asset investment decisions.

The main focus of the audit was on whether entities accounted for software costs in accordance with relevant accounting standards and the FMOs, paying particular attention to the standard elements of an internal control framework and accounting practices. In addition, in the context of software asset planning, the audit considered whether entities assessed the risks associated with software assets, used life-cycle costing approaches, and aligned ICT and capital management plans, to inform decision-making on software asset investments.

Mr P.J. Barrett (AM) - Auditor-General for Australia, presented to the ASCPA Annual Public Sector Accounting Convention, Canberra

The objectives of this audit were to:

• examine the effectiveness of ASIC's processes for receiving reports of suspected breaches of the Corporations Act; and
• assess the efficiency with which statutory reports are referred and investigated by ASIC.

The audit commenced in February 2006. ANAO undertook an assessment of ASIC's processes for receiving and referring for investigation statutory reports. ANAO also undertook a detailed examination of a random sample of 416 statutory reports received by ASIC in the period 2002–03 to 2004–05.

The audit scope did not extend to the role of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting offences referred to it by ASIC.

The objective of the audit was to examine processes used by Defence and the DMO to procure explosive ordnance for the ADF, with an emphasis on Army requirements. The audit reviewed the extent to which the DMO effectively translated the explosive ordnance requirements of the ADF, and particularly of Army, into procurement and through life support arrangements.

The objectives of the audit were to: assess whether financial delegations associated with the expenditure of public monies were determined, applied and managed in accordance with applicable legislation, Government policy and applicable internal controls; and identify better practices and recommend improvements as necessary to current practices.

This audit followed up the ANAO's 1997 performance audit report on ADF health services (Audit Report No.34 1996-97 Australian Defence Force Health Services), which focused on the delivery of non-operational health services to entitled members. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess Defence's implementation of recommendations made in the original audit report and their effectiveness in improving ADF health services.

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 whether Australian Government agencies were effectively controlling the use of credit cards for official purposes.

The objective of the audit was to ascertain how efficiently and effectively the ATO administers sales tax collections. The audit excluded an examination of the Australian Customs Service's sales tax administration, although it did examine coordination and liaison arrangements between the ATO and ACS. The audit approach involved analysing the ATO's performance against the five elements of the ATO's established compliance improvement process, namely:

• interpreting and clarifying sales tax law;
• identifying and understanding clients and markets (enabling tax officers to identify and analyse risks of non-compliance);
• providing education and information to clients regarding sales tax obligations, based on identified compliance risks;
• implementing administrative arrangements which ensure and/or assist taxpayers to meet their obligations; and
• detecting non-compliance and taking action to remedy instances of non-compliance.