The overall objective of this audit was to assess the management of the physical protection of Australian missions and staff overseas. The high-level criteria for the audit are set out at Appendix 1 of the report.

The main objectives of the audit were to assess the management and administration of protective security across Commonwealth agencies and to identify, recommend and report better practice in security management. Particular attention was paid to:

• compliance with Government policy, standards and guidelines;
• the role of management in protective security; and
• the operation of security systems and practices.

The audit criteria and procedures to assess the management and administration of the individual organisations examined were largely based on the overall control framework of an organisation and the guidance provided in the current Commonwealth Protective Security Manual.

The objective of the audit was to assess the ATO's administration of the Surcharge. Specifically, the audit sought to: report on the environment into which the Surcharge was introduced, including the legislative intent behind the Surcharge, and the current Surcharge environment; examine and report on aspects of Surcharge governance; assess the systems, processes and controls the ATO uses to: match Member Contributions Statements (MCS) data with income tax return data using Tax File Numbers (TFNs); process Surcharge information; and issue Surcharge liability assessments. assess the mechanisms the ATO uses to assess, classify, manage and rectify existing Surcharge exceptions, and prevent future exceptions from occurring; and examine the mechanisms and strategies the ATO uses to provide assurance that members and holders of contributions are complying with their Surcharge obligations.

This edition of Audit Insights is targeted at Australian Government officials who have responsibility for overseeing or conducting procurements, including those who only do procurement occasionally. The aim is to communicate lessons from our audit work to make it easier for people working within the Australian public sector to apply those lessons. It is drawn from audit reports tabled in 2020–21, 2021–22 and 2022–23 into Australian Government procurements.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program was informed by an appropriate assessment process and sound advice.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the management of the Australian Public Service (APS) workforce in implementing the Australian Government’s COVID-19 priorities.

The overall objective of the preliminary study was to determine whether a performance audit of the management of corporate sponsorship was warranted. Specifically, the areas canvassed during the preliminary study were:

• policies and guidelines for the management of corporate sponsorship;
• integration of corporate sponsorship into agency planning;
• contractual arrangements;
• evaluation of corporate sponsorship within the agency;
• valuation and reporting of corporate sponsorship; and
• costs and benefits associated with corporate sponsorship.

The preliminary study findings did not warrant proceeding to a full performance audit. However, because corporate sponsorship is likely to be a growing area of importance for the Commonwealth, the ANAO concluded that there was value in producing a better practice guide in addition to the audit report.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the management and administration of the Communications Fund, including an assessment of:

• the development and implementation of appropriate investment strategies; and
• the robustness of the governance structures and controls relating to investment activities.

On 9 May 2006, the Auditor-General advised the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services that he would undertake a performance audit and that the specific audit objectives and approach would be established once officers of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) had the opportunity to undertake preliminary enquiries with senior staff in Airservices Australia and the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). On 31 May 2006, the Auditor-General designated a performance audit under Section 18 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 (Auditor-General Act). The objectives of the performance audit were to: examine the development and administration by Airservices Australia of its contracts with the Solomon Islands Government for upper airspace management; assess the regularity of payments made under the contracts and steps taken by Airservices Australia in respect of any irregularities; and make recommendations for any improvements in the processes employed by Airservices Australia in developing and administering these and similar contractual arrangements.

The objective of the audit was to review the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of the Commercial Compliance Branch's risk management processes and to establish whether the approach provided a sound foundation for the development and application of risk management across the Australian Customs Service. The ANAO also examined the wider risk management context across ACS in order to appreciate how risk management processes in the Branch related to the agency as a whole.