The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), a division of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, is responsible for the regulation of the manufacture and supply of therapeutic goods. The objective of the audit was to assess the TGA's regulation of non-prescription medicinal products. In particular, it reviewed the TGA's systems, procedures and resource management processes used to approve new manufacturers, monitor ongoing manufacturer and product compliance with mandated requirements, and manage non-compliance. The audit made 26 recommendations designed to improve the transparency, quality and reliability of regulatory decisions taken by the TGA and improve its accountability mechanisms by enhancing its management information systems.

The objective of this audit was to assess the Private Health Insurance Administration Council's (PHIAC's) administrative effectiveness as a regulator of private health insurance. In making this assessment, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) addressed the following criteria: whether PHIAC monitored compliance with its legislative requirements and analysed related data; whether PHIAC addressed and managed non-compliance with its legislative requirements; and whether PHIAC's governance and organisation supported the performance of its legislative functions. Although the Department of Health and Ageing (Health) also has a role in the regulation of the private health insurance industry under the National Health Act 1953 (Health Act), Health's regulatory activities were outside the scope of this audit.

The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of explosive ordnance by the end users of this materiel in Air Force, Army and Navy (the Services). In particular, the focus was on the effectiveness of arrangements for the oversight and physical control of explosive ordnance once it is issued to Service units.

The audit reviewed Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and inventory management systems for explosive ordnance at the unit level in the ADF, from receipt and storage through to the use or return of explosive ordnance.The audit also examined the relationship between the management of explosive ordnance at the unit level and the Explosive Ordnance Services Contract and, where relevant, the regional Garrison Support Services (GSS) Contracts.

The audit assessed whether FaCS effectively undertakes its coordination, monitoring and other roles according to the CSTDA. The audit examined all disability services provided for under the CSTDA, except for disability employment services. The ANAO met relevant officers from FaCS' national office and State and Territory offices, and with 22 stakeholder organisations including: advocacy groups; peak national and State bodies representing the interests of disability service providers and people with disabilities; members of national and State Disability Advisory Bodies funded by FaCS; State and Territory governments; relevant Australian Government agencies; In particular, the Department of Health and Ageing and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. and local government bodies. Fieldwork for the audit was primarily undertaken during the period September 2004 to February 2005.

The objectives of the follow-up audit were to assess DFAT's implementation of the six recommendations made by the ANAO in the previous audit. It also sought to determine whether implementation of these recommendations, or alternative action, had improved DFAT's administration of consular services. The audit focused on management processes and supporting systems for the delivery of consular services. It also reviewed DFAT's implementation of recommendations of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee that were outstanding from the previous audit.

The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the AEC’s implementation of the recommendation made in ANAO Audit Report No. 28 2009–10 relating to the transport and storage of completed ballot papers.

The objective of this audit was to the examine action taken by the ATO to improve TFN integrity, particularly through the implementation of the recommendations made in:Report No.37, taking into account any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting the implementation of those recommendations; and Numbers on the Run, taking into account that the Government has not formally responded to the report at this time.The audit also aimed to identify further opportunities for the ATO to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the TFN system. The report of this audit is necessarily detailed as it considers each of the recommendations and the extent to which they have been implemented.

On 9 May 2006, the Auditor-General advised the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services that he would undertake a performance audit and that the specific audit objectives and approach would be established once officers of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) had the opportunity to undertake preliminary enquiries with senior staff in Airservices Australia and the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). On 31 May 2006, the Auditor-General designated a performance audit under Section 18 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 (Auditor-General Act). The objectives of the performance audit were to: examine the development and administration by Airservices Australia of its contracts with the Solomon Islands Government for upper airspace management; assess the regularity of payments made under the contracts and steps taken by Airservices Australia in respect of any irregularities; and make recommendations for any improvements in the processes employed by Airservices Australia in developing and administering these and similar contractual arrangements.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of CRS Australia’s delivery of Disability Management Services. In assessing CRS Australia’s performance, the ANAO examined whether:

• services are delivered in accordance with CRS Australia’s operating procedures, which incorporate the Disability Services Standards and the requirements of the DEEWR MOU;
• CRS Australia has an effective client feedback (including complaints) system, which is used to identify and address business risks and areas for improving service delivery; and
• sound governance arrangements (including performance monitoring and reporting) are in place to monitor service delivery.

The audit did not specifically examine issues and information relating to the commercial nature of the business, such as profitability levels and competitive neutrality arrangements.

The audit objective was to assess how four key departments: Education, Science and Training (DEST); Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR); Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA); and Health and Ageing (DoHA) are implementing the Government's policy objective for Indigenous service delivery.