The objective of this audit was to assess whether the WSA program has been administered effectively by the NWC/DEWHA, as relevant, and is achieving its stated program objective. Specifically, the ANAO examined whether:

• funding proposals have been assessed and approved in a fair, consistent manner and in accordance with applicable criteria, program guidelines and better practice;
• appropriate funding arrangements have been established with proponents, having regard to the size of the grant, the type of entity involved and the nature of the project; and
• DEWHA (and previously the NWC) is actively monitoring whether proponents are complying with their obligations, and grant payments are made only in accordance with funding agreements.

More broadly, the audit examined DEWHA's strategy for evaluating and reporting on the long-term benefits of the program.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DIMIA's management of its detention agreements with ACM to operate Australia's mainland immigration detention centres. In particular, the ANAO examined: DIMIA's strategic approach to the management and coordination of the contract; how DIMIA defined the services to be delivered by ACM; the systems in place to monitor and report against contract performance; the effectiveness of controls over contract payment arrangements; and DIMIA's management of infrastructure through the detention agreements.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Fixing Houses for Better Health program since 2005.

The audit reviewed the two elements of the program for which FaHCSIA is responsible: management of the service delivery arrangements and overall performance monitoring and reporting. Following the development of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which introduced new approaches to the delivery of Indigenous programs, FaHCSIA made changes to FHBH for the 2009–11 phase. The audit has focused on both the 2005–09 and the 2009–11 phases. This provided coverage of the program's normal operations as well enabling the audit to consider the modifications made to the program for the
2009–11 phase.

Against this background, the audit considered whether:

• program management arrangements had been established that were suitable for the size, nature and objectives of the FHBH program;
• service delivery arrangements were designed to support the achievement of the program's objectives and FaHCSIA's management of the program; and
• FaHCSIA used robust systems to monitor achievement of the program objectives.

The ANAO also considered whether there was any experience from the department's management of FHBH that could be broadly applied to FaHCSIA's management of the National Partnership Agreement.

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 this audit was to assess whether the Scheme is being administered effectively by the department. The ANAO focussed on Program Year 1 of the Scheme, 2005–06, and examined DIISR's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of entities to receive grants;
• assessing entities' claims for eligible expenditure;
• adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme when calculating and paying claims, and managing any debts that arise;
• and evaluating and reporting on whether the statutory objective of the Scheme is being met.

The audit did not examine the other components of the 2005–2015 industry assistance package; nor did it examine any of the programs delivered under the previous assistance package (2000–2005).

The objectives of the audit were to:

• examine Customs' management of the CMR project; and
• determine whether the ICS and CCF met:
  • project and operational objectives; and
  • user capability and functionality requirements.

Particular emphasis was given to the following areas:

• the project management framework that supported the CMR project;
• implementation arrangements for the ICS; and
• ongoing operational arrangements.

After this audit commenced, Customs engaged Booz Allen Hamilton to undertake a separate review of the ICS. The purpose of that review was to provide Customs with a forward looking report on the lessons to be learned from the implementation of the ICS, its current status and the opportunities to enhance benefits for both Government and industry. The ANAO consulted closely with the Booz Allen Hamilton team and is supportive of the recommendations in their report, which was released in May 2006. The review made thirteen recommendations relating to the ongoing management and governance of the Cargo Management Re-engineering Program at both strategic and tactical levels.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of CRS Australia’s delivery of Disability Management Services. In assessing CRS Australia’s performance, the ANAO examined whether:

• services are delivered in accordance with CRS Australia’s operating procedures, which incorporate the Disability Services Standards and the requirements of the DEEWR MOU;
• CRS Australia has an effective client feedback (including complaints) system, which is used to identify and address business risks and areas for improving service delivery; and
• sound governance arrangements (including performance monitoring and reporting) are in place to monitor service delivery.

The audit did not specifically examine issues and information relating to the commercial nature of the business, such as profitability levels and competitive neutrality arrangements.

The objective of the audit was to assess how well agencies had implemented the CPGs and relevant FMA legislation when undertaking Direct Source procurement.

The audit examined whether selected agencies had developed a sound procurement framework; appropriately classified procurement methods when meeting external reporting requirements; implemented the CPGs and relevant legislation when Direct Sourcing; and established effective procurement monitoring and review arrangements.

The ANAO selected four FMA Act agencies to provide a cross-section of the 104 agencies that reported procurement activity in AusTender in
2008–09. The agencies selected for audit were:

• the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA);
• the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Innovation);
• the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA); and
• the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).

The ANAO examined a stratified random sample of 645 procurements valued at $10 000 and over, across the four agencies. More detailed testing was undertaken for the 285 Direct Source procurements in the sample.

In two letters dated 19 and 22 June 2009, the Prime Minister requested a performance audit of a range of matters relating to representations to the Treasury regarding automotive finance arrangements for car dealers. In response to these requests, the Auditor-General decided that ANAO would undertake a performance audit under section 18 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 (Auditor-General Act). The audit objective, based on the matters raised in the Prime Minister's correspondence and in the Parliament, was to examine and report on:

• any representations to the Treasury since October 2008 from all sources regarding automotive finance arrangements for car dealers, including any made in relation to John Grant Motors;
• the nature of these representations;
• the manner in which the representations were responded to by officials, having regard to any relevant standards and procedures; and
• any related administrative matters that came to attention.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the ATO's management of its interpretative assistance activities for SMSFs.