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 objective was to form an opinion on the effectiveness of the NHMRC's grant administration. To meet this objective the NHMRC was assessed against four criteria:

• the NHMRC's governance arrangements provide appropriate accountability that it is meeting its objectives and obligations to Government (Chapter 2);
• there are strategic and systematic processes for developing and implementing grant programs (Chapter 3);
• the NHMRC manages grants post-award effectively, and complies with legislative requirements and program directives (Chapters 4 and 5); and
• the NHMRC monitors and evaluates its business to demonstrate that outcomes are being met (Chapter 6).

The audit objective was to report on the administration of the Australia Network tender process and to identify lessons learned from the conduct of the process to inform future procurement activities.

The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracts for the 2012 calendar year reporting period.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of DVA's administration of mental health programs and services to support younger veterans.

The objective of this audit was to assess the progress made by DoHA and Medicare Australia (recommendation 3) in addressing the four recommendations from ANAO Audit Report No.50, 2000–01 designed to improve the administration and performance of NCSP.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education’s (DIISRTE’s) administration of the Education Investment Fund grants program.

(DIISRTE was the department that had responsibility for the administration of the EIF grants program during the course of the audit. The recommendations and suggestions for improvement are, however, directed to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education because this department now has responsibility for the administration of the program).

Given the significant expenditure associated with the Super Seasprites, and the problems that the Project had encountered over some time, the ANAO had commenced this performance audit prior to the Government's decision to cancel the Project. The focus of the audit was on Defence's and DMO's administration of the Project. In light of the Government's decision to cancel the Project, the objective of the audit was revised to place greater emphasis on those issues that resulted in the failure of the Project to provide the required capability, and highlighting project management lessons for major Defence acquisitions going forward.Accordingly the audit objective was to:

• identify those factors that contributed to the on-going poor performance of the Project;
• outline measures taken by Defence and DMO in seeking to overcome issues encountered by the Project, and key lessons arising from this project for the benefit of major acquisitions projects generally; and
• determine the capability and cost implications of a project that failed to deliver to expectations.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DFAT's implementation of biometric technology to meet international requirements for enhanced passport security. In particular, the audit examined whether:

• Australian ePassports meet international requirements, and coordination with Australian stakeholders is effective;
• Australian biometric passport technology is fit for purpose and has enhanced passport security;
• personal data on the passport microchip is secure and DFAT maintains an appropriate focus on both protecting privacy and client satisfaction; and
• arrangements are in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the ePassport and to monitor risks.

The ANAO conducted fieldwork in each of the audited agencies to identify the processes they used to design and review forms. The ANAO also identified the extent to which the agencies' forms are available online and their approaches to placing forms online.