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 whether all agencies compiled Internet listings as required by the Senate Order, and to examine the appropriateness of the use, by selected agencies, of confidentiality provisions.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the Strategic Projects component of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program has been effectively designed and administered.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Fixing Houses for Better Health program since 2005.

The audit reviewed the two elements of the program for which FaHCSIA is responsible: management of the service delivery arrangements and overall performance monitoring and reporting. Following the development of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which introduced new approaches to the delivery of Indigenous programs, FaHCSIA made changes to FHBH for the 2009–11 phase. The audit has focused on both the 2005–09 and the 2009–11 phases. This provided coverage of the program's normal operations as well enabling the audit to consider the modifications made to the program for the
2009–11 phase.

Against this background, the audit considered whether:

• program management arrangements had been established that were suitable for the size, nature and objectives of the FHBH program;
• service delivery arrangements were designed to support the achievement of the program's objectives and FaHCSIA's management of the program; and
• FaHCSIA used robust systems to monitor achievement of the program objectives.

The ANAO also considered whether there was any experience from the department's management of FHBH that could be broadly applied to FaHCSIA's management of the National Partnership Agreement.

The audit examined the range of support made available to ADF personnel making the transition from military to civilian life, the extent to which the assistance is utilised, the cost to Defence of such assistance and the relevant responsibilities of those who deliver assistance.

The objective of the audit was to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the tip-off system, including Centrelink's management of privacy issues related to the tip-off management process.

The Australian Customs Service (Customs) is responsible for managing the integrity of Australia's border. The Australian maritime border is the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Australia's 37 000 kilometre coastline. The National Marine Unit (NMU) contributes to customs' Civil Maritime Surveillance and Response program. It has eight 35 - metre Bay Class vessels (known as Australian Customs Vessels or ACVs) that are capable of maintaining a strategic presence around the Australian coast. The audit examined the administrative effectiveness of the NMU's surveillance and response operations. Particular emphasis was given to the following areas:

• strategic and tactical taskings;
• crew operations;
• crew training;
• asset management; and
• governance arrangements.

The objective of the audit was to review selected Defence public works projects submitted in the three year period ending mid 2007 to assess whether they had been submitted in accordance with the Committee's prevailing requirements for notification and review prior to entering into financial commitments for public works. The audit also examined the procedures applied by Defence to refer public works projects to the Committee, and identified administrative practices that may improve adherence with relevant legislative and administrative referral requirements.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA and DHS’ administration of New Income Management in the Northern Territory.

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.