The audit objective was to assess the administrative effectiveness of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations(DEEWR), Department of Human Services (DHS) partnership arrangement in supporting the delivery of employment programs.

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 audit objective was to examine the effectiveness of the department's establishment of the P21 element of the BER program. The focus of the audit was on: the establishment of administrative arrangements for BER P21 in accordance with government policy; the assessment and approval of funding allocations; and the arrangements to monitor and report BER P21 progress and achievement of broader program outcomes. An examination of individual BER P21 projects was outside the scope of the audit.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the administration of the Gateway review process by Finance and FMA Act agencies. The audit also examined the extent to which those Gateway reviews that have been conducted have contributed to improvements in the delivery of major projects undertaken by FMA Act agencies.

The objectives of the audit were to: assess whether financial delegations associated with the expenditure of public monies were determined, applied and managed in accordance with applicable legislation, Government policy and applicable internal controls; and identify better practices and recommend improvements as necessary to current practices.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Human Services’ administration of the child support objection review process.

This second audit report relating to SMSFs examines the effectiveness of the Tax Office's approach to managing SMSF compliance risks. Specifically the ANAO examined the processes the Tax Office uses to:

• identify the risks relevant to SMSFs not complying with their obligations under the SISA, including members accessing their superannuation early;
• mitigate SMSF compliance risks; and
• administer fund wind-ups.

During the preparation of the ANAO's Planned Audit Work Program 2006–07, JSCEM suggested that the ANAO consider a possible performance audit into the efficiency and effectiveness of the AEC's management of elections. JSCEM's suggestion was considered in the planning and preparation for this performance audit, which focuses primarily on the AEC's administration of the CEA in the lead-up to and conduct of the 2007 general election.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DFAT's employment and management of its LES at Australia's overseas missions. In particular, the audit examined arrangements for: planning and risk management; guidance and training; recruitment, engagement and employment of LES; and performance management.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Australian Government's responsibilities under the NPARSD. In this respect the ANAO considered whether:

• planning processes enabled effective establishment of the remote service delivery model;
• implementation of the key elements of the remote service delivery model effectively addressed the quality and timing requirements of the NPARSD; and
• performance measurement systems were developed to enable the parties to the agreement to assess whether the NPARSD objectives are being met.