The Auditor-General responded on 14 November 2019 to correspondence from the Minister for Finance, Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann, regarding annual performance statements audits. The Minister requested that the Auditor-General conduct a program of pilot assurance audits of annual performance statements of Commonwealth entities subject to the PGPA Act, in consultation with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA). The Auditor-General has agreed to the request and proposes to conduct a pilot to audit the 2019–20 performance statements of three entities.

The objective of the audit was to assess the progress of the M113 Upgrade Project (Defence Project: Land 106), including progress in the development of operational capability resulting from the introduction of the upgraded vehicles into service. The high-level audit criteria used to assess the project’s progress and Defence’s effectiveness in administering the M113 Upgrade Project were:

• the degree to which the schedule for the production and delivery of upgraded M113 vehicles to Defence had been recovered in accordance with Defence’s response to the 2008–09 audit report and contractual requirements, as negotiated over the life of the contract;
• Defence’s measurement and allocation of the total cost of the upgrade project; and
• the development of capability arising from the upgrade project.

The audit examined the relationship between the strategic guidance and capabilities provided by Army, through analysis of the Army capability management and reporting framework. The objectives of the audit were to: Assess Army capability management and reporting processes; determine whether these processes efficiently and effectively manage resources to provide Army capability; and accurately indicate the capability provided by Army.

The Auditor-General responded on Thursday 27 February 2020 to correspondence from Mr Andrew Giles MP dated 4 February 2020, requesting that the Auditor-General undertake a performance audit of the Urban Congestion Fund. The fund is administered by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. The Auditor-General provided follow-up responses to Mr Giles MP on 24 July 2020 and 19 August 2020. 

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the management of the MSS for the delivery of Centrelink services. The management of the MSS was assessed against the following criteria:

• there are effective planning arrangements to identify and address the evolving needs of DCALB customers;
• service delivery arrangements meet the current needs of DCALB customers; and
• there are effective performance monitoring and reporting arrangements which are used to improve service delivery.

Around 20 per cent of the people receiving Centrelink services are identified as being from a diverse cultural and linguistic background (DCALB). DHS’ Multicultural Servicing Strategy (MSS) sets out the approach for delivering Centrelink services to DCALB customers. The MSS has four main components — Language Services, the Multicultural Services Officer program, Stakeholder Engagement Strategies and Employee Support Tools and Strategies.

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).

Grant Hehir, Auditor-General for Australia, attended the XXIII Commonwealth Auditors-General Conference in New Delhi, India, and presented a keynote speech on 22 March 2017 titled Environmental Audit: A Commonwealth Perspective.

The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracts. This included assessing compliance with the Order and following up on the implementation of recommendations made in previous Senate Order audits.

The audit involved three components:

• an examination of a stratified random sample of 150 contracts listed as containing confidentiality provisions from material and small agencies across the Australian Government to determine whether confidentiality provisions were used and reported appropriately;
• an examination of all FMA Act agencies' calendar year 2009 contract listings, and ministers' letters of advice, to assess compliance with the requirements of the Order, and check reported instances of excluded contracts; and
• a follow-up of the implementation of previous audit recommendations relating to the administration of the Senate Order in four agencies. The selected agencies were the: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF); and the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court). The selected agencies were audited in one of the ANAO's previous five audits of Senate Order compliance.

The Australian National Audit Office, in partnership with the Australian Capital Territory Audit Office hosted the 12^th Meeting of the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institution’s (PASAI) Regional Working Group on Environmental Auditing. The meeting was held from 17-19 September 2024 in Canberra, Australia.

The objective of the audit was to assess the ATO's administration of the Surcharge. Specifically, the audit sought to: report on the environment into which the Surcharge was introduced, including the legislative intent behind the Surcharge, and the current Surcharge environment; examine and report on aspects of Surcharge governance; assess the systems, processes and controls the ATO uses to: match Member Contributions Statements (MCS) data with income tax return data using Tax File Numbers (TFNs); process Surcharge information; and issue Surcharge liability assessments. assess the mechanisms the ATO uses to assess, classify, manage and rectify existing Surcharge exceptions, and prevent future exceptions from occurring; and examine the mechanisms and strategies the ATO uses to provide assurance that members and holders of contributions are complying with their Surcharge obligations.