The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DEEWR's administration of the National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy (LNNP). The three high-level audit criteria used to form a conclusion examined the extent to which DEEWR:

• established sound administrative and payment arrangements consistent with government policy, including through its negotiation of bilateral agreements, implementation plans and reform targets;
• properly managed administrative and payment arrangements; and
• effectively monitored and reported on delivery and outcomes.

The objective of the report is to review the effectiveness of remediation activities put in place by Defence and the DMO to improve the performance of SDSS following the delivery in July 2003 of the SDSS Upgrade Project, with specific attention to the SDSS Get Well Programme. The audit reviewed the outcomes of the Get Well Programme, and assessed how effectively a segment of the Defence supply chain (of which SDSS is one key component) was meeting selected maritime end user capability and reporting requirements. In order to achieve this, the audit reviewed three key maritime combatant forces: COLLINS Class submarines; Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigates (FFGs); and ANZAC Class Frigates. The ANAO notes that these three capabilities account for some 50 per cent of the Navy's total forecast expenditure for 2006–07.

The objective of the audit is to assess the effectiveness of the ADF’s mechanisms for learning from its military operations and exercises. In particular, the audit focused on the systems and processes the ADF uses for identifying and acting on lessons, and for evaluating performance. The ANAO also examined the manner in which information on lessons is shared within the ADF, with other relevant government agencies, and with international organisations. Reporting to Parliament was also considered.

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 audit objective was to assess how four key departments: Education, Science and Training (DEST); Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR); Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA); and Health and Ageing (DoHA) are implementing the Government's policy objective for Indigenous service delivery.

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.

The objective of the audit was to assess the administrative effectiveness of the Tax Office's strategies to address serious non-compliance. In conducting the audit, the ANAO examined the Tax Office's management framework and arrangements to deter, detect and deal with fraud and serious evasion.

The audit objective was to assess selected agencies’ compliance with the four mandatory ICT security strategies and related controls in the Australian Government Information Security Manual.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ended on 30 June 2019. The report addresses all applicable obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014; the Auditor-General Act 1997; the performance measures set out in the outcome and programs framework in the ANAO’s Portfolio Budget Statements 2018–19 and the ANAO Corporate Plan 2018–19, and annual reporting requirements set out in other relevant legislation.

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.