This report covers a number of the discretionary compensation and debt relief mechanisms that are available to Commonwealth agencies, where individuals or entities have been disadvantaged by legislation, or actions by agencies or staff, or some other negative circumstances. It deals mainly with two legislative mechanisms, namely, act of grace payments and waivers of debt, and one administrative mechanism, the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme. This report also briefly covers two other mechanisms, namely ex gratia payments and payments in special circumstances relating to Australian Public Service (APS) employment. The main objective of the audit was to assess whether the management of claims for compensation and debt relief in special circumstances was in accordance with relevant legislative requirements and Commonwealth guidelines, and whether the current administrative policies and procedures were adequate.

The audit objective was to assess whether the Attorney-General’s Department’s conduct of the procurements relating to two of the new child sexual abuse-related national services employed open and effective competition and achieved value for money, consistent with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs).

The audit examined the effectiveness of DEEWR's administrative arrangements supporting the delivery of Indigenous childcare services through MACS and crèches, including the approaches DEEWR uses to monitor the achievement of the BBF sub-program objective.

In conducting the audit, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reviewed three key areas:

• program administration—DEEWR's administrative systems and processes supporting the delivery of Indigenous childcare services through MACS and crèches and the broader BBF sub-program;
• management of service provider funding agreements—DEEWR's systems and processes for managing MACS and crèche service providers' funding agreements; and
• monitoring and reporting performance—the effectiveness of DEEWR's processes for monitoring the performance of service providers, and the achievement of the outputs and outcomes of the BBF sub-program.

The ANAO sought not to duplicate the work of DEEWR's Internal Audit function, and in doing so referred to the findings of the recent internal audit review of the CCSSP, where these were relevant and appropriate.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the management of funding under the Settlement Engagement and Transition Support program was effective in achieving the program objectives and consistent with the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Principles.

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).

The objective of the audit was to assess how well agencies had implemented the CPGs and relevant FMA legislation when undertaking Direct Source procurement.

The audit examined whether selected agencies had developed a sound procurement framework; appropriately classified procurement methods when meeting external reporting requirements; implemented the CPGs and relevant legislation when Direct Sourcing; and established effective procurement monitoring and review arrangements.

The ANAO selected four FMA Act agencies to provide a cross-section of the 104 agencies that reported procurement activity in AusTender in
2008–09. The agencies selected for audit were:

• the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA);
• the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Innovation);
• the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA); and
• the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).

The ANAO examined a stratified random sample of 645 procurements valued at $10 000 and over, across the four agencies. More detailed testing was undertaken for the 285 Direct Source procurements in the sample.

The objectives of this audit were to assess, with respect to guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort:

• changes in the size and nature of the Commonwealth's reported exposure since 30 June 1995;
• the extent of improvement in agencies' management and monitoring of the Commonwealth's exposure to these instruments;
• the approach of agencies to effective risk management and control of Commonwealth exposures to these instruments; and
• whether current reporting practices provide a sufficiently comprehensive coverage for public accountability purposes, at both the agency and whole of government levels.

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).

The objective of the audit was to examine the investment of public funds by selected entities, including: compliance with relevant legislation, delegations and instructions; the value for money of investment strategies; and reporting of investment activities. Six entities were selected for audit, comprising three FMA Act agencies and three Commonwealth authorities. The six entities had aggregrate investments of $1.64 billion as at 30 June 2004 and realised investment earnings of some $80.4 million during 2003/04.

The audit concluded that the ATO has an administratively effective framework for managing the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme (EGCS), introduced in mid-2003. The planning, monitoring and reporting framework is structured and appropriate, the risk and compliance management framework is generally well-developed and the processes and controls framework is comprehensive. Changes in the Scheme, as foreshadowed in Government's Energy White Paper, Securing Australia's Energy Future, present the opportunity to enhance the transparency of Scheme objectives and develop ways to evaluate performance against these objectives