The objective of the audit was to assess whether purchases of goods and services are conducted in accordance with relevant legislation, Government policies and guidelines, and sound purchasing principles and practices. The audit at each entity covered the internal control framework for purchasing and purchase transactions during 2002-03 and 2003-04 and, where applicable, was based on the CPGs current at that time. The audit examined all aspects of the purchasing process from the initial requirement for purchase through to the delivery of the supply and payment. It included an examination of aselection of individual purchases at each audited entity.

The objective of this audit was to assess the Private Health Insurance Administration Council's (PHIAC's) administrative effectiveness as a regulator of private health insurance. In making this assessment, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) addressed the following criteria: whether PHIAC monitored compliance with its legislative requirements and analysed related data; whether PHIAC addressed and managed non-compliance with its legislative requirements; and whether PHIAC's governance and organisation supported the performance of its legislative functions. Although the Department of Health and Ageing (Health) also has a role in the regulation of the private health insurance industry under the National Health Act 1953 (Health Act), Health's regulatory activities were outside the scope of this audit.

Directly after the collapse of Ansett in September 2001, most of its estimated 15 000 employees faced the possibility of retrenchment The Government immediately announced the introduction of the Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett group employees (SEESA) to address two risks facing the employees:

• the risk-to a certain limit - of a shortfall in their payments of accrued employee entitlements from Ansett and,
• the risk of delay in their being paid.

The objective of the audit was to determine how efficiently and effectively the two key elements of SEESA were managed: DEWR's management of the mechanism for making SEESA payments and DOTARS' management of the associated Air Passenger Ticket Levy.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs management of complaints and other feedback to support service delivery. The audit criteria were that DVA has:

• a well-designed framework for managing complaints and other feedback;
• effective processes and practices to manage complaints; and
• appropriately analysed complaints to inform service delivery.

The audit objective was to assess whether agreements between Australian Government (Commonwealth) agencies reflect sound administrative practices. To meet this objective, the audit reviewed current government policy and a range of better practice guidelines, conducted interviews with agencies and examined cross-agency agreements, to formulate suitable audit criteria and subsequently develop better practice principles.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tax Office's administration of the wine tax.

Four key areas were examined in the audit: governance arrangements; interpretative assistance and advice; compliance approaches for Australian entities; and administering the rebate for New Zealand wine producers.

The ANAO conducted fieldwork in the Tax Office's Adelaide office between May and September 2010 and also held discussions with representatives from Customs, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and New Zealand Inland Revenue. The ANAO also consulted with representatives of wine producers, wholesalers, retailers, tax agents and key industry associations, seeking their views on elements of the Tax Office's administration of the wine tax.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of agencies' contract management by determining if they had sound practices and systematic approaches to this activity. Particular attention was given to each agency's:

• day-to-day management of individual contracts; and
• approach to managing its contract population.

The objective of this audit was to assess the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources' management of the Pharmaceuticals Partnerships Program. The audit focused on how the department:

• promoted the Program and assessed applications for funding;
• managed the funding agreements; and
• managed the Program's governance arrangements.

The audit sought to assess how well the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) manages aggressive tax planning. We did this by exploring the nature of aggressive tax planning and the ATO's approach to its management. In the latter context, we looked at:

• the ATO's previous experience with aggressive tax planning and action on previous significant external reviews, particularly dealing with mass marketed investment schemes;
• strategy and operations, intelligence gathering and use; and the identification and management of promoters given their significant role in aggressive tax planning.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the APVMA is performing its key regulatory functions effectively. In particular, the audit examined the APVMA's arrangements for:

• planning and overseeing the delivery of regulatory functions;
• registering pesticides and veterinary medicines in a timely manner;
• obtaining external scientific advice to support the registration function;
• monitoring the quality of pesticides and veterinary medicines approved for sale in Australia; and
• administering its cost recovery framework.