The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of management of the procurement of a major, replacement capability for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) by the DMO, and Defence. The audit reviewed the initial capability requirements and approval process; analysed the acquisition agreements for elements of the project; and examined the interim through-life support arrangements being put in place to support the capability.

The objective of the audit was to assess the completeness and reliability of the estimates reported in Tax Expenditures Statement 2006 (TES 2006). That is, the audit examined the development and publication of the detailed statement of actual tax expenditures required by Division 2 of Part 5 of the CBH Act. The development and publication of aggregated information on projected tax expenditures included in the Budget Papers pursuant to Division 1 of Part 5 of the CBH Act was not examined.

The audit objective was to provide independent assurance to the Parliament on the effectiveness of Australian Public Service organisations in the use and management of the HRIS to satisfy mandatory reporting requirements, as well as provide meaningful information to management. The audit also considered the use of employee self service facilities offered by the HRIS, which has the capacity to provide staff with access to their personal information, reduce manual processing and streamline processing.

The audit objective was to assess the adequacy of the Commonwealth's administration of three key components of the Agriculture - Advancing Australia package: the FarmBis II program, the Farm Help program and the Farm Management Deposits scheme. Broadly, the audit examined the areas of strategic management, managing compliance, program promotion, performance monitoring and evaluation, and performance results.

The audit scope covered development of the R2R Program, management of the initial R2R Program and changes made to the Program funding conditions and administrative guidance for Auslink Roads to Recovery. The scope did not include management of Auslink Roads to Recovery. The audit objectives were to: · assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the initial R2R Program; and · identify any opportunities for improvements to management of the Program.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, Centrelink undertakes its role effectively, so as to support the timely implementation of the Tribunals' decisions about customers' entitlements. In assessing Centrelink's performance, the ANAO examined whether:

• the information provided by Centrelink, in relation to appeals to the SSAT and the AAT, effectively supported customers' and Tribunals' decision-making;
• the relationships and administrative arrangements between Centrelink, DEEWR and FaHCSIA supported the effective management of the appeal process and the capture of issues that may have broader implications for legislation, policy and service delivery; and
• Centrelink implemented SSAT and AAT decisions in an effective and timely manner.

The audit focused on the external review and appeal mechanisms and completes the cycle of audits on Centrelink's review and appeal system. The audit examined those appeals where an implementation action was required and did not consider SSAT and AAT appeals that were dismissed, withdrawn or were not within the Tribunals' jurisdiction.

The audit assessed FaHCSIA's management of AACAP and how the department monitors the contribution the program is making to the improvement of primary and environmental health, and living conditions, in remote Indigenous communities.

The audit examined program delivery under the 2006–2009 MoU, as well as the planning for the 2010 project under the variation to the 2006–2009 MoU. As part of the audit the ANAO considered:

• program strategy and implementation including the roles and responsibilities of the major stakeholders, community selection and scope of works (Chapter 2);
• the financial management of the program and the changing role of the Contracted Program Manager (Chapter 3); and
• performance measures, including FaHCSIA's performance reporting framework, and approach to monitoring and reporting performance against the stated program objectives (Chapter 4).

The audit focused on AACAP in so far as it relates to Indigenous community outcomes. It did not consider the program from the perspective of the Australian Defence Force capability building.

The audit focussed on the systems and processes OGTR has established for both receiving and assessing applications under the Act, and also for ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements through monitoring and inspection. The audit objective was to form an opinion on the discharge by OGTR of selected functions entrusted to it under the Act. The audit assessed the practices of OGTR against the following principal criteria: Assessment of applications under the Act: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for the management and assessment of applications under the Act. Ensuring compliance—monitoring, inspection and enforcement activities: Whether OGTR has established systems and procedures for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Act. Performance management: Whether OGTR manages selected aspects of its work efficiently and effectively. The audit did not seek to form an opinion on the appropriateness of the chosen structure of the regime for regulating gene technology or the merit of the scientific judgments involved. The audit methodology included discussions with representatives from agencies that co-ordinate aspects of the co-operative regulatory regime for gene technology across Australian jurisdictions, with various other stakeholders and users of the regime, as well as with officers of OGTR, along with examination of OGTR documents and files.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs management of complaints and other feedback to support service delivery. The audit criteria were that DVA has:

• a well-designed framework for managing complaints and other feedback;
• effective processes and practices to manage complaints; and
• appropriately analysed complaints to inform service delivery.