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 this audit was to form an opinion on the Australian Research Council's (ARC's) management of research grants. To achieve this, ANAO centred the audit around the following aspects of ARC's grants administration: governance and structure, particularly the roles and responsibilities of those parties involved in administering ARC's grants (Chapter 2); the processes for assessing and selecting ARC grants (Chapter 3);post-award management of grants under the Funding Agreements (Agreements) between ARC and those universities that receive and administer the ARC grants to researchers (Chapter 4); and ARC's monitoring of its grant programs for management, performance improvement and reporting (Chapter 5). In its assessment, ANAO considered ARC's compliance with relevant sections of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 (ARC Act) and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act). The assessment also took account of the ANAO's Better Practice Guides, particularly the Better Practice Guide—Administration of Grants. The audit focused mainly on ARC's administration of Discovery Projects, the largest scheme in ARC's National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP).

The objective of the audit was to ascertain and report to the Parliament on the ATO's administration of PPS and to identify opportunities for improvement. Four key compliance issues were identified: reporting PPS income, claiming PPS credits, remitting PPS income, claiming PPS credits, remitting PPS deductions, and managing PPS exemptions and variations. In addition, the following key aspects were considered: PPS risk assessments, coordination of PPS administration between the Small Business Income and Withholding & Indirect Taxes business lines, and PPS compliance project performance information.

The audit objective was to form an opinion on the administrative effectiveness of the arrangements between DEEWR (previously DEWR) and Centrelink for the delivery of working age employment services under the Business Partnership Agreement (BPA).

This follow-up audit reviewed the operations of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) which is responsible for ensuring the sustainable use and efficient management of Commonwealth fisheries resources. The objective of this follow-up audit was to assess the extent to which AFMA addressed the issues that gave rise to the recommendations of ANAO Report No.32 1995-96, and the related recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee Report 1997, that were supported by the Government.

The follow-up audit focussed on the key issues identified in the recommendations and grouped these in the themes of:

• strategic and performance management;
• management of the advisory process;
• implementation of fisheries management methods;
• managing AFMA's environmental responsibilities as they relate to Commonwealth fisheries
  management;
• compliance, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities; and
• management of information and research.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of key elements of the management and control frameworks established by ANU to support administration and the achievement of the ANU's objectives. The audit focused on an analysis of the administrative framework and, in particular, aspects of corporate governance that were identified as being central to good management; such as effective controls, transparent planning, regular reporting, and performance assessment.

An ANAO audit of AQIS' cost-recovery systems was conducted in 2000-01 (Audit Report No 10, 2000-01), following a request from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA). That audit aimed to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of AQIS' cost-recovery systems, and provide assurance to Parliament that cost-recoverable programs were identifying and recovering the full costs of services provided, without cross-subsidisation. The ANAO made six recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of AQIS cost-recovery systems. The JCPAA, at a subsequent hearing, made a further three recommendations. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess AQIS' implementation of the ANAO and the JCPAA recommendations. The audit also aimed to determine whether implementation of these recommendations, or alternative actions taken to address the issues leading to the recommendations, had improved AQIS' management of its cost-recovery processes.

The audit reviewed the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's management of the navigation aids network, which is an important factor in shipping safety. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether AMSA's management of the network provides for the strategic needs of marine navigation in Australian waters, and whether AMSA's management was efficient and effective. The audit focused on AMSA's strategic planning, the management of revenue and expenditure to support the network, its contract management practices, and its accountability and performance reporting arrangements.

This audit was a follow-on to Audit Report No.21 1997-98 Protective Security, which reviewed, among other things, information security other than computer and communications security, against the policy and procedures outlined in the 1991 PSM. That audit found inconsistencies in the identification and marking of classified information and weaknesses in the handling and storage of classified information, as well as other breakdowns impacting on information security.

The Service Chiefs of Navy, Army and Air Force are accountable to the Chief of the Defence Force for the way that equipment is used by their Service. They are also accountable for the safety, fitness for service and environmental compliance of the equipment. The audit report deals with the way that the Service Chiefs are assured of the safety and suitability for service of the Australian Defence Force's (ADF's) ordnance systems. Ordnance systems include munitions such as missiles, shells and mines, and the auxiliary material necessary to aim, launch and guide munitions.