The objective of this follow-up audit was to review FaCSIA's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.17 1999–2000. The focus was whether FaCSIA had maintained or improved its oversight, coordination and administration of the CSHA for both the 1999 CSHA and the 2003 CSHA, in line with the recommendations and findings identified in the previous ANAO audit.

The objective of the follow-up audit was to report on the action taken by the Australian Customs Service to address the recommendations of the 1996 Audit Report. The audit also reviewed key areas of the Passenger Movement Charge administration identified in the 1996 audit, including the appropriateness of formal arrangements between the ACS and Regular Public Transport airlines and assessed the proposed arrangements being developed by the ACS. The arrangements with RPT airlines were a particular focus in the follow-up report (as they were in the 1996 Audit Report), because of the significance of that category of carrier in revenue terms

The objective of the audit was to review the effectiveness of the department's administration of the PSPI. To achieve this, the ANAO considered the department's program planning and design, service delivery arrangements and monitoring, review and reporting activities. The decision which resulted in the replacement of ASSPA with PSPI was a policy decision of the Government and, thus, was beyond the scope of this audit.

The audit objective was to determine whether selected grant programs are being administered efficiently by the Australia Council in relation to suitable comparators. The selected grant programs are collectively known as the Australia Council Grants Program.

This report complements the interim phase report released in June 2013 (Audit Report No.49 2012–13), and provides a summary of the final audit results of the audits of the financial statements of all Australian Government entities, including the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Australian Government.

The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess how well the ATO has implemented the recommendations of Audit Report No.3 of 2001-2002, The Australian Taxation Ofiice's Administration of Taxation Rulings. As part of the audit we also considered the ATO's progress in addressing the JCPAA's suggestions resulting from its review of Report No.3 of 2001-2002.

The objective of this audit was to assess the extent to which the recommendations and major findings of the ANAO's 1999 audit of Commonwealth Debt Management have been addressed, and the impact of any changes.

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).

This audit is a follow-up to ANAO Audit Report No.31 1995-96 Environmental Management of Commonwealth Land: Site Contamination and Pollution Prevention (‘the original audit'). The objectives of the follow-up audit were to determine: the extent to which Defence has implemented the agreed recommendations contained in the original audit (relating to its environmental management and the management of unexploded ordnance (UXO) on non-Commonwealth land) and; the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations in improving the environmental management of Commonwealth land.

The previous audit made ten recommendations to improve Centrelink's review and appeals system. Centrelink agreed to all recommendations. The objective of this follow-up audit was to review Centrelink's progress in implementing the recommendations of Audit Report No.35, Centrelink's Review and Appeals System 2004-05.