The objectives of the audit were to:

• determine the extent to which government entities complied with the requirement to publish and maintain documents online that were presented to the Parliament;
• evaluate selected government entities' policies and practices regarding online publishing; and
• assess AGIMO's policy and guidance in support of online publishing.

To address this objective the audit was conducted in three parts. Firstly, we reviewed a sample of papers tabled between 2000 and 2008 in order to assess their availability online. Next, we examined the online publishing practices of five government entities. These were the: Australian Federal Police (AFP); Department of the House of Representatives (DHR); Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure); Department of the Treasury (Treasury); and National Archives of Australia (NAA). Finally, we reviewed AGIMO's role in supporting government entities in their online publishing practices.

The objective of the audit was to review the effectiveness and efficiency of Centrelink's customer feedback system and the progress Centrelink had made in implementing the recommendations of the 2004–05 audit and the subsequent JCPAA inquiry.

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 this audit was: to form an opinion on the adequacy of selected agencies' approaches to monitoring and evaluation of government programs and services delivered on the Internet; and to identify better practices and opportunities for improvement. In order to achieve this objective, the audit examined the websites and Internet-delivered services of five agencies.

The objective of the audit was to examine how effectively Health manages the risk of PBS drugs not being used according to PBS subsidy conditions. The audit examined two areas: during listing, how Health identified and implemented measures to decrease the risks of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions; and following listing, how Health confirmed that usage and expenditure on PBS drugs was consistent with estimates. The report examines selected approaches used by Health, which have evolved in recent years, to manage the risk of PBS drugs being used outside subsidy conditions. The report also acknowledges and describes the role of the expert committees. The scope of the audit was limited to PBS drugs for which Health pays a subsidy. The audit did not examine Health's role in educating consumers, prescribers, and other health professionals, or the implications of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement for the PBS. Additionally, the ANAO did not form an opinion on the success of Medicare Australia's compliance role. To form an opinion against the audit objective, the ANAO interviewed Health personnel, committee members and stakeholders, examined relevant documents and files, analysed drug usage and expenditure data, and attended a number of committee meetings. To assist the audit process, the ANAO selected a sample of eight drugs. The drugs were selected due to their high cost to the PBS and/or high usage, or because the drug has had a particularly interesting PBS history. The sample is not representative of all drugs on the PBS. In 2004–05, 15.3 million prescriptions were written for these eight drugs, with the Government subsidy totalling $1.05 billion.

The objective of the audit was to assess how effectively DHS (including CSA), FaHCSIA and Centrelink managed the implementation of stage one of the CSSR and the Improving Compliance program.

The Department of Defence is responsible for administering the Defence export facilitation program which is aimed at promoting Australian defence-relevant exports. The Department administers the program in cooperation with AUSTRADE. Defence is also responsible for administering export controls on defence and related goods and dual-use goods. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for controls on chemical and biological weapons precursors. The Department of Primary Industries and Energy is responsible for controls on nuclear-specific technology and source/fissionable material. The Australian Customs Service implements barrier controls at ports and airports. In September 1993 the then Minister for Trade referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) an inquiry into the implications of Australian defence exports. The JSCFADT's Report on the Implications of Australian Defence Exports (September 1994) recommended, inter alia, that the Auditor-General conduct a performance audit of the operations of the guidelines concerning the controls on the export of defence and related goods, the export control process, and all export facilitation activities. The Auditor-General agreed to undertake an audit, which commenced in May 1995 as a preliminary study and was designated as a performance audit on 30 August 1995.

The purpose of Insights: Audit Opinion is to provide the Auditor-General's views on key issues facing the Australian public sector. This inaugural edition is on the topic of the Commonwealth Performance Framework and how it can be better used to drive effectiveness in the Australian public sector. This includes the need to prioritise the improvement of performance frameworks, embed a performance culture and use performance information to drive business improvement.

The objective of the audit was to provide an independent assurance on the effectiveness of the management of the upgrade of the M113 fleet for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The audit sought to identify the initial capability requirements and approval process; analyse the contract negotiation process; and examine the management of the project and contracts.

The objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which FMA Act agencies’ establishment and use of procurement panels supported value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in procurement. The objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which FMA Act agencies’ establishment and use of procurement panels supported value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in procurement.