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 the completeness and reliability of the estimates reported in Tax Expenditures Statement 2006 (TES 2006). That is, the audit examined the development and publication of the detailed statement of actual tax expenditures required by Division 2 of Part 5 of the CBH Act. The development and publication of aggregated information on projected tax expenditures included in the Budget Papers pursuant to Division 1 of Part 5 of the CBH Act was not examined.

The objective of the audit was to examine the Tax Office's administration of the Lost Members Register. In particular, the audit examined the Tax Office's governance arrangements for the LMR; its strategies for managing data quality; and its provision of access to LMR data. The audit also considered how the Tax Office's administration of the LMR has responded to recommendations made in the ANAO's earlier review (Audit Report No.17, 2005–06 Administration of the Superannuation Lost Members Register), relevant changes in funding and legislation supporting the LMR, as well as the Change Program.

The objective of Phase Two of the audit was to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of operations of ATSIC Central, State and Regional Offices in relation to the administration of the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme. The ANAO established key criteria to assess progress against the implementation of the Phase One recommendations and further assess the efficiency and effectiveness of CDEP administration. The main areas examined were: planning, including reports of progress against plans and the development and use of performance information; monitoring, including client feedback and the review process at the Regional Office level; the implementation and effectiveness of management information systems in relation to CDEP; and the development and implementation of quality assuranced processes at State/Regional level.

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 objective of this audit was to determine the extent to which selected agencies have implemented the two recommendations of the previous audit; and the appropriateness of advice provided by Finance and the ATO. To address this audit objective, the audit assessed:

• the roles of Finance and the ATO in clarifying: the interaction of the PB and SG Act; the ongoing role of the PB Act; and mechanisms to monitor Australian Government organisations' compliance with the PB Act;
• the extent to which Finance and the ATO have provided guidance and other support to assist Australian Government organisations manage and meet statutory superannuation obligations for eligible contractors; and
• whether Australian Government organisations have managed and met statutory superannuation obligations for contractors in past and current contracts.

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.

The ANAO provided an article to the March 2023 edition of the PASAI newsletter on the development of a methodology for auditing ethics. The article was titled SAI Australia develops methodology for auditing ethics.

In 1997, and subsequently in 1999, the Australian Government introduced two major spending packages with a total value of almost $1 billion. These spending packages were designed to address the challenges posed by the issue of climate change and to meet Australia's domestic and international commitments. Since its inception in 1998, the Australian Greenhouse Office has been responsible for the implementation of greenhouse related programs from these two major spending packages. The objective of the audit was to examine and report on the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of seven major programs administered by the Australian Greenhouse Office.

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.