The audit is a follow-up to Audit Report 12, 1995-96 Risk Management by Commonwealth Consumer Product Safety Regulators. The objectives of this follow-up audit were to determine the extent to which ANZFA had implemented the agreed recommendations contained in the 1995 Audit Report, and to determine the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations in improving food safety regulation.

The follow-up audit, Drug Evaluation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration [TGA], reviewed the extent to which TGA had implemented recommendations made by the ANAO in 1996 on the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of TGA's evaluation and approval of prescription drugs for public use. This follow-up audit was conducted because of the importance of effective drug evaluation processes to public health.

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 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 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.

The audit was structured to provide an overview of the administration of Commonwealth assistance to the agrifood industry. In particular, the ANAO sought to form a view on the extent to which four key agencies (Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry-Australia, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Transport and Regional Services and Austrade) are able to demonstrate their success in achieving the Government's objectives for the Australian agrifood industry by assessing agencies' agrifood-related: planned outcomes; performance information; and reporting.

The objectives of the audit were to assist the Department in the timely identification of any deficiencies in the evaluation of responses from suppliers and options for addressing the deficiencies. The objectives were to:

• test the Department's adherence to Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines for open and effective competition and to legislative and other Government specified requirements; and
• provide a report to the Parliament, the Government and other interested parties on the probity of the evaluation process.

The scope of the audit was restricted to considering the processes employed by the Department in the selection of hearing devices for use under the voucher scheme.