The audit reviewed the use and operation of performance information in service level agreements between Centrelink and three agencies; the Department of Social Security, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The objective of the audit was to establish whether the performance assessment framework specified in the agreements enabled the adequate assessment of achievements under purchaser/provider arrangements entered into by DSS, DEETYA and Centrelink.

The audit was conducted as a joint financial statement and performance audit of HIC's IT systems. The objective of the financial statement component of the audit was to express an opinion on whether HIC could rely on its IT systems to support production of a reliable set of balances for the financial statements. The objective of the performance audit component was to determine whether HIC's IT systems' outputs met quality and service delivery targets.

The audit reviewed the fraud control arrangements in the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS), a policy formulation, and advising body and major purchaser of social welfare services from Centrelink. The objective was to assess whether FaCS had:

• implemented appropriate fraud control arrangements in line with the Fraud Control Policy of the Commonwealth and that these arrangements operated effectively in practice; and
• fulfilled its responsibilities as a purchaser of services in relation to fraud control.

This audit is one in a series of fraud control audit and is complemented by a similar audit of Centrelink, a major provider of services on behalf of FaCS.

The purpose of the audit was to examine the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the Therapeutic Goods Administration's performance in evaluating and approving prescription drugs for public use. In particular the audit focused on analysing elements of the regulatory process associated with the evaluation of prescription drugs. In this context the audit reviewed the administrative operations performed within the Department's Drug Safety and Evaluation Branch, the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee and the Business and Services Branch of the TGA, rather than any processes preceding or succeeding those activities.

The objective of Phase Two of the audit was to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of operations of ATSIC Central, State and Regional Offices in relation to the administration of the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme. The ANAO established key criteria to assess progress against the implementation of the Phase One recommendations and further assess the efficiency and effectiveness of CDEP administration. The main areas examined were: planning, including reports of progress against plans and the development and use of performance information; monitoring, including client feedback and the review process at the Regional Office level; the implementation and effectiveness of management information systems in relation to CDEP; and the development and implementation of quality assuranced processes at State/Regional level.

The purpose of the audit was to assess whether management of parliamentary workflow by the agencies reviewed was efficient and effective and to identify elements of good practice. In assessing agency effectiveness and efficiency, the audit focussed on issues of client service such as timeliness, quality and cost. It considered also the governance framework and accountability arrangements relevant to parliamentary workflow, as well as more operational considerations including the use of information technology, development of relevant management information and suitable benchmarking processes.

The ANAO concluded that DHAC's administration of the National Cervical Screening Program is generally sound. The ANAO found that the department has a key role in the Program by providing secretariat services and other support to the NAC, which provides policy advice to AHMAC, and by supporting initiatives to further develop the Program. Some areas of DHAC's administration of the Program provide examples of good practice. Related examples are the early identification of the need to monitor the Program, the early identification of possible data sources for monitoring, and the use of an independent body to provide advice, through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, on performance indicators and data sources. A further example is DHAC's administration of the provision of cervical screening funding assistance to the States and Territories through Public Health Outcome Funding Agreements, which complies with the principles for sound Specific Purpose Payments program administration advocated by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in their Report 362. On the other hand, the ANAO has identified areas for improvement in quality assurance for the analysis of Pap smears by pathology laboratories.