The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tax Office's administration of the PRRT. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) identified four key areas for review: general administration; compliance; promoting certainty in administering the PRRT; and governance arrangements.

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 objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tax Practitioners Board's implementation and administration of the regulatory arrangements for tax practitioners under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009.

The objective of the audit was to examine and report on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the courts' client service arrangements for family law clients. The audit also assessed the effectiveness of the coordination between the two courts, and of their administration of Primary Dispute Resolution (PDR) services.

The objective of this audit was to assess key aspects of Australian Government agencies' fraud control arrangements to effectively prevent, detect and respond to fraud, as outlined in the Guidelines. The scope of the audit included 173 agencies subject to the FMA Act or the CAC Act.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DEEWR’s administration of FWEIP. The three high level criteria that were used to make this assessment were the appropriateness of DEEWR’s:

• program planning and design;
• selection and engagement of providers; and
• program monitoring, reporting and evaluation.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Scheme is being administered effectively by the department. The ANAO focussed on Program Year 1 of the Scheme, 2005–06, and examined DIISR's arrangements for:

• assessing the eligibility of entities to receive grants;
• assessing entities' claims for eligible expenditure;
• adhering to the funding limits for the Scheme when calculating and paying claims, and managing any debts that arise;
• and evaluating and reporting on whether the statutory objective of the Scheme is being met.

The audit did not examine the other components of the 2005–2015 industry assistance package; nor did it examine any of the programs delivered under the previous assistance package (2000–2005).

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA's management of the Australian Government's responsibilities under the NPARSD. In this respect the ANAO considered whether:

• planning processes enabled effective establishment of the remote service delivery model;
• implementation of the key elements of the remote service delivery model effectively addressed the quality and timing requirements of the NPARSD; and
• performance measurement systems were developed to enable the parties to the agreement to assess whether the NPARSD objectives are being met.

The objective of this audit was to assess DIMIA's management of the tender, evaluation and contract negotiation processes for the Detention Services Contract. Specifically, the audit considered DIMIA's processes for determining value for money based on the department's: evaluation of the request for tender, including the announcement of the preferred tenderer; negotiations with the successful and unsuccessful tenderers; and management of liability, indemnity and insurance.

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.