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 objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative arrangements for the provision of food to the Australian Defence Force and identify possible areas for improvement. The audit criteria addressed the adequacy of policy guidance, planning, performance information and risk management in all areas of ADF food provisioning.

The objective of the audit was to continue to examine the progress of the implementation of the annual performance statements requirements under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (PGPA Rule) by selected entities.

The objective of the audit was to continue to examine the progress of the implementation of the annual performance statements requirements under the PGPA Act and the PGPA Rule by the selected entities. The audit was also designed to:

• provide insights to entities more broadly, to encourage improved performance; and
• continue the development of the ANAO’s methodology to support the possible future implementation of annual audits of performance statements.

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 reviewed the ATO's collection and management of activity statement information. The audit paid particular regard to:

• the environment into which activity statements were introduced;
• taxpayer concerns with activity statement administration;
• the mechanisms the ATO uses to capture and process activity statements;
• the change processes the ATO uses to change and test activity statement IT systems; and
• the management methodology used to report on, and assess the performance of, activity statement related systems and processes.

The objectives of this audit were to assess the progress of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project against stated schedule, cost and technical performance objectives; and Defence Materiel Organisation's (DMO's) progress in implementing the recommendations and addressing the findings of ANAO Audit Report No. 3 2005–06, Management of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project.

The objectives of the audit were to assess the administrative and financial effectiveness of the Department of Finance and Administration's (Finance's) management of the Commonwealth's exposure under the DASFLEET Tied Contract; assess the effectiveness of Finance's monitoring of performance of the DASFLEET Tied Contract with Macquarie Fleet; and review the action taken by Finance in response to a recommendation of Audit Report No. 25 1998-99, Sale of DASFLEET.

The IIF program is designed to redress the low level of provision in Australia of high risk venture capital for small new technology - based companies commercialising research and development. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the IIF program was being effectively managed by the Industry Research and Development (IR&D) Board and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to achieve the program objectives. The audit focused on corporate governance arrangements for program administration, the selection process to award licences, the safeguards to protect the Commonwealth's financial interests, management of licence agreements, and program performance management. The audit also examined program results to date from available data.

The audit examined how well performance information for programs administered by the (now) Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) facilitates good decision-making and provides a suitable framework for control and accountability for performance.