The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence is effectively managing the EO Services Contract.

The audit focused mainly on Defence's contract management framework, including the arrangements to monitor the contractor’s performance in delivering services under the contract. The audit also examined the processes used by Defence to develop the current version of the contract and the extent to which the revised contract, as negotiated in 2006, provides an assurance of better value for money when compared to the original contract signed in 2001.

To assess the extent to which agencies create, manage and dispose of records in accordance with key business, legal and policy requirements.

The agencies included in the audit were the: Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs); Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC); and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). The audit also considered the Archives' response to Recommendation No. 1 from ANAO Audit Report No.6 2006, 07 Recordkeeping including the Management of Electronic Records, including whether they had clarified Australian Government records management requirements for agencies.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tax Office's administration of the Superannuation Co-contribution Scheme.

The audit reviewed five key areas: governance arrangements; information technology systems and controls; co-contribution processing; compliance approaches; and communication with clients.

The objective of the audit was to assess the Personnel Management Key Solution Project's planning and approval processes and its contract and project management. The audit addresses the scope of the delivered system, the expectations of end-users, and the system's ability to meet their capability requirements.

The audit objective was to assess the appropriateness of the use and reporting of confidentiality provisions in Australian Government contracts. This included assessing compliance with the Order and following up on the implementation of recommendations made in previous Senate Order audits.

The audit involved three components:

• an examination of a stratified random sample of 150 contracts listed as containing confidentiality provisions from material and small agencies across the Australian Government to determine whether confidentiality provisions were used and reported appropriately;
• an examination of all FMA Act agencies' calendar year 2009 contract listings, and ministers' letters of advice, to assess compliance with the requirements of the Order, and check reported instances of excluded contracts; and
• a follow-up of the implementation of previous audit recommendations relating to the administration of the Senate Order in four agencies. The selected agencies were the: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF); and the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court). The selected agencies were audited in one of the ANAO's previous five audits of Senate Order compliance.

The overal objective of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit was to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the conversion to digital broadcasting by the national broadcasters. This encompasses, among other things, addressing the request from the former Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (the Minister) for an audit of the actual cost of digital conversion, the sources of funds applied and the efficiency of funds utilisation. It also involved an examination of the broadcasters' management processes to deliver their Strategies and to 'minimise the call on the Budget'.

The audit objective was to form an opinion on the adequacy of a select group of Australian Government agencies' management of Internet security, including following-up on agencies' implementation of recommendations from the ANAO's 2001 audit. The agencies audited were Australian Customs Service (ACS), Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) and Medicare Australia. Factors considered in selecting agencies were agency size based on funding levels, whether the agency was included in ANAO's 2001 audit (ACS, ARPANSA, and DEWR), whether the agency's ICT was managed in-house or outsourced, and the nature of the agency's website (that is, general or restricted access).

The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to Parliament concerning the adequacy of Defence preparedness management systems and to identify possible areas for improvement. The audit focused on the systems and processes that Defence uses to manage preparedness. We did not review the preparedness levels of specific capabilities, nor did we cover capital acquisition processes. The audit included coverage of: - preparedness systems architecture; - control and direction of preparedness; - coordination among contributors to preparedness; and - performance management and preparedness.

The objective of the audit was to examine Defence's management of leases that have resulted from property sale and leaseback transactions. Leases subject to review were for a period of ten or more years and included the following six properties: the Defence Plazas in Sydney and Melbourne; the Hydrographic Office Wollongong; DNSDC Moorebank; Campbell Park Offices in Canberra; and ADC Weston Creek in Canberra. The audit examined the process for identifying the properties for sale and leaseback and the sale approval process. The audit sought to determine the basis on which the properties were proposed for sale and leaseback and the financial impact for the Government. The audit also reviewed the lease terms and conditions to determine whether they protect the Government's interests, and examined Defence's management of commitments arising from the leases.

The objective of the audit was to assess DoHA's effectiveness:

• in undertaking PIP program planning, program monitoring and review; and
• with Medicare Australia, in ensuring PIP program delivery to general practices and their medical practitioners.

In undertaking the audit, the ANAO considered the 12 incentives that comprised the PIP up to August 2009. The three most recently introduced incentives at the time of audit fieldwork, namely, Domestic Violence, GP Aged Care Access and eHealth incentives, were examined in greater detail and formed case studies to support audit analysis. The ANAO also sought views on the program administration from industry, including from general practices directly through an online survey.

With regard to accreditation of general practice, the audit scope did not include an assessment of the Standards nor the work of the bodies that undertake accreditation of general practices. The ANAO's focus on general practice accreditation related to DoHA's management of program entry criteria.