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 the effectiveness of the Tribunals' management of their operations. To this end, the audit examined whether the MRT and the RRT:

• have achieved intended operational efficiencies from the introduction of common facilities, services and resourcing;
• have established appropriate arrangements for governance, business planning and guidance of Members and staff, and for performance monitoring and reporting of Tribunal operations;
• finalise cases within Tribunal time and productivity standards; and
• provide applicants with services in accordance with service standards.

The audit covered Tribunal operations for review of visa decisions. The correctness of individual decisions was not assessed as part of the audit.

The audit focused particularly on developments in the Tribunals' management performance in the four year period from 2001–02 to 2004–05.

The scope of the audit covered Centrelink's emergency management framework and community recovery assistance operations in general, with a specific focus on the 2009 North Queensland floods and Victorian bushfires. FaHCSIA's role during those disaster events was also considered as it played a key role in establishing the policy parameters of the services Centrelink delivered and addressing issues arising from policy implementation.

The objective of this audit was to assess AQIS's management of export certification. In particular, it addressed the systems, procedures, processes and resources used to: register premises and license exporters; monitor compliance with arrangements; and manage non-compliance. The audit focussed on regulatory activities for assuring that Australian exports meet food safety and quarantine requirements. The methodology involved an examination of each of the seven AQIS export programmes.

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 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 the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the major elements of Centrelink's central, strategic level project management arrangements, as defined in the CPMF. It focused on how well:

• the CPMF supports better management and service delivery in Centrelink;
• the CPMF supports project managers and projects to comply with better project management principles, relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• Centrelink monitors project performance and encouraged the attainment of project objectives.

The audit examined agency approaches to the management of intellectual property under its control, and identified themes common to the management of all types of intellectual property. The audit objective was to:

(i) form an opinion on whether Commonwealth agencies have systems in place to efficiently, effectively and ethically manage their intellectual property assets; and

(ii) identify areas for better practice in intellectual property management by those agencies.

The Auditor-General responded on 28 April 2025 to correspondence from Senator the Hon Anne Ruston dated 31 March 2025, requesting that the Auditor-General conduct an investigation to examine a grant awarded to the Gallipoli Turkish Cultural Foundation.

The audit objectives were to report on the implementation status of the parliamentary resolutions and other actions arising out of the six recommendations made in the final PSC Report, Review by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner of Aspects of the Administration of the Parliament. The audit also broadly examined the impact of implementation of the parliamentary resolutions on aspects of: the level of services provided to the Parliament generally following amalgamation of the three former parliamentary departments into the Department of Parliamentary Services; and accommodation space within Parliament House. The designated audit agency was the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS).