The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of physical security arrangements in selected Australian Government agencies, including whether applicable Australian Government requirements are being met.

The objective of this follow-up audit is to assess the Tax Office's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.59 2002–03, Administration of Australian Business Number Registrations, having regard to any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting the implementation of those recommendations.

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 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 objective of the audit was to assess whether FaCSIA administers grants effectively, according to better practice guidelines, and consistently across geographic areas and the range of programmes included in the scope of the audit. The scope of the audit included grants administered by FaCSIA between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2005, relating to programmes falling within four of the five groups of programmes providing funding for families and communities namely: Community Support; Family Assistance; Childcare Support; and Youth and Student Support. In total, these groups involved total expenditure of some $533 million in 2004–05.

The objective of the audit was to examine the accuracy of Medicare claims processing, including the adequacy and operation of relevant manual and system processes. The audit assessed the:

• adequacy and operation of relevant manual and system controls used to support the reliable processing of Medicare claims, and
• accuracy of the assessing and processing of Medicare claims, using Computer Aided Audit Techniques (CAATs).

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 assess the effectiveness of Defence's procurement and contract management for the provision of Garrison Support Services.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the ATO’s administration of DGR endorsements and associated arrangements.

The objective of the audit was to form an opinion about DVA's management of the current and future demand for VHC services. To form an opinion, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) examined whether DVA:effectively planned the distribution of VHC resources; distributed VHC resources according to its planning; and monitored and evaluated how effectively it managed the demand for VHC services. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO interviewed DVA personnel, examined DVA documents, interviewed personnel at a selection of Agencies, Service Providers and stakeholders, and reviewed relevant literature.