The objective of the audit was to assess the management practices undertaken by APS agencies to achieve value for money and transparency in dealing with contracts for non-APS workers. The focus of the audit was on circumstances where agencies had a significant reliance on a non-APS workforce to assist in achieving their core functions. Regular reporting by agencies of expenditure on non-APS workers was outside the scope of this audit.

The audit objective was to assess whether the early stages of DIAC's preparations for the re-tendering of the detention and health services contracts were consistent with sound practice. The audit focused on governance arrangements, in particular the recordkeeping arrangements, roles and responsibilities of personnel, expert advisors and the probity auditor—matters raised in the previous audit report. The audit did not examine the RFT, which is not due to be issued until April 2007.

The objective of the audit was to assess the coordination of Australian Government assistance to Solomon Islands through RAMSI, including the establishment of objectives and an outcomes monitoring framework. In particular, the audit examined arrangements for: coordination between Australian Government agencies; strategic planning and risk management; measuring the effectiveness of RAMSI; and reporting to RAMSI's Australian stakeholders.

The focus of this audit was on those entitlements administered by Finance. Similar to the 2001-02 Audit Report, the audit scope did not include entitlements provided to persons employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) Act). It also did not examine the administration of entitlements provided through other agencies (such as Parliamentarians' salary and electorate allowance, which are paid by the Chamber Departments, and entitlements provided to Ministers by their home department).

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 audit objectives were to examine if:

• DCITA had effectively planned and administered the HiBIS and BC Stage 1 programs; and
• the programs had achieved their objectives.

The audit focused on DCITA's activities to support the planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting of HiBIS and BC Stage 1 programs.

Consistent with the ANAO's practices, and in response to a request from AusAID, a follow-up audit was conducted in the period May to November 1998 to assess the extent of implementation of the recommendations of a 1996 audit into the Management of Funding to Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)and whether the implementation of recommendations has effectively improved the management of funding to NGOs. The ANAO examined AusAID's key funding accountability documentation, tested the revised accountability arrangements and consulted a number of key stakeholders, including NGO representatives.

The objective of this audit was to assess and report on the administration of the regional delivery of NHT 2 and the NAP.

The scope of the audit encompassed both Environment and DAFF, including the Joint Team of staff from both departments working together under a common management structure for the delivery of both programs. The audit focused on:

• the implementation of the regional delivery arrangements;
• governance and financial management for regional delivery; and
• monitoring, evaluation and reporting on the programs' performance.

The objective of the audit was to assess the framework being put in place to manage and account for aid funds provided under the AIPRD. In particular, the audit addressed: structures for oversighting the development and delivery of the AIPRD; planning and risk management (including those relating to fraud and corruption); financial management; and arrangements for ongoing monitoring and reporting. The audit focussed on the arrangements being established to monitor, evaluate and report on AIPRD implementation, rather than the management of activities and outcomes achieved. This reflects the fact that the long lead times associated with establishing such a large programme of assistance had meant that only limited activities were underway at the time of audit fieldwork. The ANAO anticipates undertaking an audit in the future of the management of activities and outcomes achieved, when more funds have been expended. It was not the purpose of this audit to examine Australia's immediate emergency and humanitarian response to the tsunami crisis.

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.