The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is responsible for regulating aviation safety in Australia, the safety of Australian aircraft operating overseas as well as for regulating and administering Australia's airspace. In September 2008, the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport presented a report on the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and related matters. That report made three recommendations, one of which requested an Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit of CASA's implementation and administration of the regulation of aircraft operators' Safety Management Systems (SMS'). ANAO agreed to this request with the objective of the audit being to assess CASA's implementation and administration of an SMS approach to regulating aircraft operators.

An SMS is a systematic approach to managing safety, which encompasses organisational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures. Amendments to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly referred to as the Chicago Convention) made in 2006 require that contracting states regulate the SMS' of aircraft operators. As a contracting state to the Chicago Convention, Australia is required to mandate that aircraft operators implement an SMS.

The audit reviewed the High Wealth Individuals Taskforce, a comprehensive compliance program with the Australian Taxation Office. The objective of the audit was to examine and report on the management and operations of the taskforce. In doing so, the audit reviewed the Australian Taxation Office's own evaluation of the taskforce and assessed whether, and to what extent, the taskforce delivered the outcomes specified by the Government.

The audit objective was to determine whether DIAC's biometrics program had appropriate:

• business review processes (including a business case);
• authorisation;
• business and IT governance arrangements; and
• IT project management and systems development arrangements.

The audit was undertaken following advice from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) to the Auditor-General that assurance that ABC programming adequately reflects the ABC's Charter was an audit priority of Parliament. The objective of the audit is to provide Parliament with this assurance. The focus of the audit was on the governance arrangements of the ABC Board and management that enable the ABC to demonstrate the extent to which it is achieving its' Charter obligations, and other related statutory requirements, efficiently and effectively. The scope of the audit was as follows:

• Review the ABC's corporate governance framework against better practice models. The ANAO had regard to the ABC's unique role as a national public broadcaster established as a budget funded Commonwealth statutory authority subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
• Examine the ABC Board's approach to the interpretation of the Charter requirements of the ABC and the setting of strategic directions, and management's administrative arrangements for implementing the strategic directions established by the Board.
• Examine the ABC's performance information framework, the development, documentation and use of performance measures in relation to targets and/or objectives, the monitoring and reporting of performance and its' inter-relationship with the corporate planning and budgetary processes, particularly in relation to the strategic directions set by the Board.

The audit did not examine the overall management of the ABC. In keeping with the audit scope, the audit examined ways in which the ABC aligns its' strategic directions with its' Charter requirements for programs broadcast on radio, television and on-line and assures itself, and Parliament, about the achievement of its' Charter obligations. Further, the audit did not examine the operations of ABC Enterprises or symphony orchestras that operate as ABC-owned subsidiary companies.

The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of explosive ordnance by the end users of this materiel in Air Force, Army and Navy (the Services). In particular, the focus was on the effectiveness of arrangements for the oversight and physical control of explosive ordnance once it is issued to Service units.

The audit reviewed Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and inventory management systems for explosive ordnance at the unit level in the ADF, from receipt and storage through to the use or return of explosive ordnance.The audit also examined the relationship between the management of explosive ordnance at the unit level and the Explosive Ordnance Services Contract and, where relevant, the regional Garrison Support Services (GSS) Contracts.

The objective of the audit was to assess the arrangements for oversighting the Action Plan and whether the Plan's new measures have been administered effectively to deliver the intended results.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Human Services’ management of the trials of intensive service delivery for customers with complex needs.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DIAC’s management of the student visa program. Three key areas were examined in the audit: the processing of student visa applications; ensuring compliance with student visa conditions; and cooperation between DIAC and DEEWR.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the Department of Human Services’ management of Medicare customer data and the integrity of this data.

The audit examined the administrative effectiveness of arrangements between Health and HIC, in relation to the management and administration of the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Health predominantly exercises a policy and leadership role within the health portfolio - HIC delivers a range of health services directly to the public and members of the health industry. Both agencies have stated that they recognise the importance of working together, as partners in their respective roles, to maximise their performance in the achievement of health portfolio outcomes and to discharge their respective responsibilities. This joint commitment is embodied in a written agreement - called the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA).