The objective of this follow-up audit was to examine the ATO's implementation of the 20 recommendations in: The Administration of Petroleum Excise Collections (Audit Report No.17, 2001(02); and The Administration of Tobacco Excise (Audit Report No. 55, 2001(02), having regard to any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting implementation of those recommendations. The audit also aimed to identify scope for improvement in the ATO's administration of petroleum and tobacco excise. Follow-up audits are recognised as an important element of the accountability processes of Commonwealth administration. The Parliament looks to the Auditor-General to report, from time to time, on the extent to which Commonwealth agencies have implemented recommendations of previous audit reports. Follow-up audits keep the Parliament informed of progressive improvements and current challenges in areas of Commonwealth administration that have previously been subject to scrutiny through performance audits.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations’ management of the Australian Government’s contribution to the Covenant. The scope of the audit is the Australian Government’s role in the initial establishment of the Covenant and its ongoing contribution through other employment programs.

This audit is a follow-up to ANAO Audit Report No.31 1995-96 Environmental Management of Commonwealth Land: Site Contamination and Pollution Prevention (‘the original audit'). The objectives of the follow-up audit were to determine: the extent to which Defence has implemented the agreed recommendations contained in the original audit (relating to its environmental management and the management of unexploded ordnance (UXO) on non-Commonwealth land) and; the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations in improving the environmental management of Commonwealth land.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the management and administration of the Communications Fund, including an assessment of:

• the development and implementation of appropriate investment strategies; and
• the robustness of the governance structures and controls relating to investment activities.

Members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have informal and formal complaint mechanisms available to them to address grievances. Initially, members are advised to seek resolution of their complaint at the lowest possible level, through the normal command channels and administrative arrangements. A member who is not satisfied that a complaint has been resolved in this manner may use the Redress of Grievance (ROG) system to submit a formal complaint to the commanding officer of the member's unit. The objective of this audit was to ascertain whether the ROG system could be refined to improve the efficiency and timeliness of processing of complaints while preserving the equity and transparency the current system provides.The Redress of Grievance system is clearly time-consuming and resource intensive. Some grievances have taken as long as four years to resolve. Some could be resolved by administrative means rather than through recourse to grievance processes. The system contains various inefficiencies that detract from its cost-effectiveness from the viewpoint of the ADF and individual members. In addition many members are unaware of the system or do not have a high level of confidence in its effectiveness.

Given the significant expenditure associated with the Super Seasprites, and the problems that the Project had encountered over some time, the ANAO had commenced this performance audit prior to the Government's decision to cancel the Project. The focus of the audit was on Defence's and DMO's administration of the Project. In light of the Government's decision to cancel the Project, the objective of the audit was revised to place greater emphasis on those issues that resulted in the failure of the Project to provide the required capability, and highlighting project management lessons for major Defence acquisitions going forward.Accordingly the audit objective was to:

• identify those factors that contributed to the on-going poor performance of the Project;
• outline measures taken by Defence and DMO in seeking to overcome issues encountered by the Project, and key lessons arising from this project for the benefit of major acquisitions projects generally; and
• determine the capability and cost implications of a project that failed to deliver to expectations.

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 performance of the Child Support Agency in the administration of key aspects of the Child Support Scheme. The ANAO previously audited the CSA in 1993-94 and identified scope for improvement in the management and administration of the Child Support Scheme. Particular areas of audit concern included client service, staff training and debt management. The current audit has reviewed the CSA's progress in improving Agency performance since that time. The audit focused initially on the areas identified in the previous audit, but also sought to identify further opportunities for improvement where appropriate.

Mr P.J. Barrett (AO) - Auditor-General for Australia, an Occasional Paper

The audit reviewed Defence's higher-level management of its knowledge system equipment acquisition projects. These amount to $8.5b. The focus of the audit was on the opportunities for Defence to adopt a much more coherent and integrated approach to knowledge systems management prospectively rather than on emphasising current system compatibility issues.