The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the department's administration of general recurrent grants paid to the States and Territories for government schools. To achieve this, the ANAO assessed whether the department:

• paid the correct amount of general recurrent grants to the States and Territories;
• effectively managed the agreements with the States and Territories; and
• monitored progress towards achieving the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century.

The audit examined whether the Department of Home Affairs implemented all agreed recommendations from parliamentary committee and Auditor-General reports within the scoped timeframe.

The audit objective was to assess whether the Department of Employment effectively designed and monitors the progress of the jobactive program.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the transition of the Remote Jobs and Communities Programme to the Community Development Programme, including whether the Community Development Programme is well designed and administered effectively and efficiently.

The objective of this audit was to the examine action taken by the ATO to improve TFN integrity, particularly through the implementation of the recommendations made in:Report No.37, taking into account any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting the implementation of those recommendations; and Numbers on the Run, taking into account that the Government has not formally responded to the report at this time.The audit also aimed to identify further opportunities for the ATO to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the TFN system. The report of this audit is necessarily detailed as it considers each of the recommendations and the extent to which they have been implemented.

The objective of the audit was to assess the application of the outcomes and outputs framework in Australian Government agencies. The audit included a review of:

• the outcomes and outputs of agencies and the integration of the outcomes and outputs framework into agencies' operations;
• the extent to which agencies' performance indicators incorporated better practice characteristics to enable agencies to meet their performance reporting obligations;
• agencies' processes for capturing, monitoring and reporting financial and performance information and the extent to which outcomes and outputs information was used in agency decision-making; and
• the extent that agencies met their external reporting and accountability obligations.

The audit consisted of a survey of 44 agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) undertaken in October 2005 and detailed audit testing in three of those agencies. The purpose of the survey was to provide cross-agency data in relation to agencies' implementation of the framework during the period 2002–03 to 2005–06. The ANAO received responses from all 44 agencies, although not all agencies responded to all questions. The ANAO did not audit the information provided by survey participants and the reported results are based on agencies' responses to the survey.

The agencies at which detailed audit testing was undertaken were:

• Department of Education Science and Training;
• the then Department of the Environment and Heritage; and
• IP Australia.

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).

Given the importance of customer feedback to Centrelink's business, the ANAO considered it timely to conduct a series of performance audits relating to Centrelink's customer feedback systems, particularly in relation to its delivery of the services then provided on behalf of FaCS. The overarching objective of this series of ANAO performance audits of Centrelink's customer feedback systems was to assess whether Centrelink has effective processes and systems for gathering, measuring, reporting and responding effectively to customer feedback, including in relation to customer satisfaction with Centrelink services and processes.

The objective was to assess the extent to which staff reductions have been managed in a sound strategic and cost-effective manner consistent with the Government's guidelines and the ANAO's 1996 better practice guide Managing APS Staff Reductions. The audit focussed on 3 agencies - the Australian Taxation Office, the former Department of Primary Industry and Energy, and the former Department of Transport and Regional Development. The ANAO found that the majority of staff reductions were achieved through retrenchment rather than natural attrition; and that decisions on the number of retrenchments were not always supported by an assessment of the impact of the reductions on the agencies' abilities to conduct their business.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA’s administration of the HAF. To address this objective, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) assessed FaHCSIA’s administration against a range of audit criteria, including the extent to which:

• assessment and approval processes were soundly planned and implemented, and were consistent with the requirements of the overarching financial management framework;
• appropriately structured funding agreements were established and managed for each approved grant; and
• the performance of the HAF, including each of the funded projects, was actively monitored and reported.