The objective of the audit was to assess whether FaCSIA administers grants effectively, according to better practice guidelines, and consistently across geographic areas and the range of programmes included in the scope of the audit. The scope of the audit included grants administered by FaCSIA between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2005, relating to programmes falling within four of the five groups of programmes providing funding for families and communities namely: Community Support; Family Assistance; Childcare Support; and Youth and Student Support. In total, these groups involved total expenditure of some $533 million in 2004–05.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the administration of the National Black Spot Programme. It was undertaken in a manner similar to the audit of the Roads to Recovery Programme. Specifically, the audit approach involved:

• examination of DOTARS records and discussions with officers in DOTARS and four of the State road transport authorities responsible for administering the Programme;
• analysis of project monitoring, reporting and payment arrangements; and
• selecting a sample of 45 LGA areas across four States so that ANAO could examine projects delivered with Commonwealth funding.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration, by DoHA and the Commonwealth partners, of the 2008 and 2011 Heads of Agreement for the management, operation and funding of the Mersey Community Hospital (The Commonwealth partners for this audit were the Tasmanian Government Department of Health and Human Services and the Tasmanian Health Organisation – North West).

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether FaCS and Centrelink had: a valid Business Case for the Edge project, as revised from time to time, including estimated costs, actual costs, and expected benefits; effective governance of the project, including reviews at critical points in the project and subsequent decisions to continue or, in the final analysis, to discontinue; an appropriate contract with SoftLaw, which was adequately managed; delivered appropriate advice on progress, project viability, and acceptable solutions to technical issues to Executive of FaCS and Centrelink during the project; and valid reasons for discontinuing the project. The ANAO began this audit in March 2004, four months after the Edge project was terminated, following the Auditor-General's agreement to a suggestion by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that the project was a suitable subject for audit.

The primary objective of the audit was to assess FaCS' management of the Internet portals for which it had responsibility as lead agency, www.youth.gov.au, www.community.gov.au, and www.families.gov.au. The ANAO also included in the audit a website directed towards youth. The source which provided many of the services expected of a portal. The audit considered governance structures for the portals; measurement of efficiency and effectiveness; and control factors, such as change management,security, and legal issues.

The audit objective was to assess Health's administration of primary care funding, with a focus on the administrative practices of the Primary Care Division and Health's State and Territory Offices. In forming an opinion on the audit objective, the ANAO reviewed 41 agreements, with a combined value of $252 million. The ANAO also reviewed relevant documentation and files, interviewed programme officers and met with a number of stakeholders. The audit comments on a range of issues, including the utility of funding agreements, monitoring, payments, and support for administrators.

The audit objectives were to report on the implementation status of the parliamentary resolutions and other actions arising out of the six recommendations made in the final PSC Report, Review by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner of Aspects of the Administration of the Parliament. The audit also broadly examined the impact of implementation of the parliamentary resolutions on aspects of: the level of services provided to the Parliament generally following amalgamation of the three former parliamentary departments into the Department of Parliamentary Services; and accommodation space within Parliament House. The designated audit agency was the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS).

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of specific climate change programs by the departments of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and Resources, Energy and Tourism. In undertaking this audit, particular emphasis was given to the implementation of good administrative practice and the extent to which the program objectives were being met. The audit followed four lines of inquiry:

• development of program objectives and assessment of program risks;
• assessment and approval of competitive grant applications;
• assessment and approval of rebate applications; and
• measurement and reporting of program outcomes.

The objective of the audit is to examine and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of AFP's administration and management of its overseas deployments. The audit specifically examines two deployments and focuses on strategic and operational planning and logistics. The audit examines a planned, long-term overseas deployment (as part of the Participating Police Force (PPF) within the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI)) and a crisis-driven deployment in response to a specific event (Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) assistance to Thailand following the Indian Ocean Tsunamis of 26 December 2004).

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of grants made to the ARTC. The audit involved an examination of DOTARS' administration of the grant funding approved for, and paid to, the ARTC (in respect of both the grants paid for projects approved under legislation and the three special grants). It also involved consideration of the role of Finance and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) in advising on the special grant funding and (in respect of Finance) the payment and reporting arrangements for the grants. The audit was conducted under Section 18 of the Auditor-General Act 1997.