The objective of this audit was to form an opinion on the Australian Research Council's (ARC's) management of research grants. To achieve this, ANAO centred the audit around the following aspects of ARC's grants administration: governance and structure, particularly the roles and responsibilities of those parties involved in administering ARC's grants (Chapter 2); the processes for assessing and selecting ARC grants (Chapter 3);post-award management of grants under the Funding Agreements (Agreements) between ARC and those universities that receive and administer the ARC grants to researchers (Chapter 4); and ARC's monitoring of its grant programs for management, performance improvement and reporting (Chapter 5). In its assessment, ANAO considered ARC's compliance with relevant sections of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 (ARC Act) and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act). The assessment also took account of the ANAO's Better Practice Guides, particularly the Better Practice Guide—Administration of Grants. The audit focused mainly on ARC's administration of Discovery Projects, the largest scheme in ARC's National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP).

Over the past few years, the Auditor-General has conducted three audits of corporate planning and two audits of annual performance statements. This edition of audit insights examines the findings from these reports and discusses key learnings that are relevant for all Commonwealth entities.

The audit objective was to examine the efficiency of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' (CDPP's) case management.

The management of Australia's overseas posts has not previously been scrutinised by the ANAO from a performance perspective. This audit is the first in a series planned to examine different aspects of the administration of Australian representation abroad, focusing particularly on DFAT and Austrade, as the agencies responsible for managing almost all overseas posts.

The diversity and complexity of issues at overseas missions of different sizes mean that posts generally cannot be treated as if they were all the same. This audit concentrated on small and medium-sized posts. The findings and conclusions should, therefore, not be regarded as automatically applicable to large posts.

This performance audit is the first property management audit that the ANAO has conducted since the FMA Act came into effect in 1997, with the associated devolution of responsibility to agency heads. The audit included coverage of office accommodation currently leased in Australia from the private sector. This office accommodation was housing the functions and activities of clerical, technical or professional staff, including conference and meeting rooms and ministerial suites but excluding basements, car parks, theatrettes, and cafeterias.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the management of the MSS for the delivery of Centrelink services. The management of the MSS was assessed against the following criteria:

• there are effective planning arrangements to identify and address the evolving needs of DCALB customers;
• service delivery arrangements meet the current needs of DCALB customers; and
• there are effective performance monitoring and reporting arrangements which are used to improve service delivery.

Around 20 per cent of the people receiving Centrelink services are identified as being from a diverse cultural and linguistic background (DCALB). DHS’ Multicultural Servicing Strategy (MSS) sets out the approach for delivering Centrelink services to DCALB customers. The MSS has four main components — Language Services, the Multicultural Services Officer program, Stakeholder Engagement Strategies and Employee Support Tools and Strategies.

In 2012–13, the ANAO pilot project to audit Key Performance Indicators(KPIs) was continued with the objective of conducting a review of framework developments, both in terms of the clarity of the policy and guidance issued by Finance and the performance of agencies in applying this policy and guidance, as a basis for implementing a future program of audits; and to further develop and test an audit methodology to address the practical challenges of assessing the appropriateness of KPIs, and their complete and accurate reporting.

The objective of the performance audit was to report to Parliament our assessment as to how well the ATO manages and uses the AIIR data in taxation administration. The ANAO considered the following four key areas in addressing the audit objective. 1. Governance arrangements within the ATO, focussing on whole of ATO and whole-of-government aspects of the AIIR data, as distinct from solely business line applications. 2. Receipt of AIIR data and how well the ATO facilitates the collection of complete and valid AIIR data from investment bodies 3. Management of AIIR data through the construction by the ATO of valid entity records by using the AIIR data in conjunction with existing ATO client identification master files. 4: Use of the AIIR data on a systematic basis to inform active compliance activities.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s management of the Australian Government’s Register of Lobbyists.

The audit objective was to assess whether the Department of Immigration and Border Protection adopted sound contract management practices for the delivery of garrison support and welfare services for offshore processing centres in Nauru and Manus Island.