The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness and value for money to date of the Department of Defence’s acquisition of combat reconnaissance vehicles under project Land 400 Phase 2.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Defence’s design process and implementation to date of the Defence Export Strategy.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Department of Defence's management of its public communications and media activities.

The objective of this audit was to examine whether the Tourist Refund Scheme (TRS) is being effectively administered, with the appropriate management of risks.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of Defence’s administration of allowances and entitlements paid to its Australian Public Service (APS) employees.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the Department of Defence’s Projects of Concern regime is effective in managing the recovery of underperforming projects.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Defence’s preparations for the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter into Australian service and its subsequent sustainment. 

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is efficiently delivering services to veterans and their dependents.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness to date of the Department of Defence's (Defence) planning for the mobilisation of its continuous shipbuilding programs in Australia.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence has a fit-for-purpose framework for the management of materiel sustainment.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness to date of the implementation of the Tourism 2020 strategy by the Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) and Tourism Australia.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of Army’s workforce planning.

The audit objective was to assess Defence’s implementation of the five recommendations in  ANAO Report No.19 2014-15 Management of the Disposal of Specialist Military Equipment and the related recommendation in JCPAA  Report 449 Review of Auditor-General's Reports Nos. 1-23 (2014-15).

The objective of the audit was to examine Defence’s progress since 2007 in introducing into service a fully capable Tiger fleet and cost-effective sustainment arrangements.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Department of Defence's administration of rehabilitation services under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.

The audit objectives were to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of the test and evaluation (T&E) aspects of its major capital equipment acquisition program; and to report on Defence’s progress in implementing T&E recommendations made in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s August 2012 report, Procurement procedures for Defence capital projects.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Navy’s strategy for recruiting and retaining personnel with specialist skills. The effective delivery of Navy capability depends on Navy having available sufficient numbers of skilled personnel to operate and maintain its fleet of sea vessels and aircraft, and conduct wide‑ranging operations in dispersed locations. Without the right personnel, Navy capability is reduced. Navy’s budget for 2014–15 included $1.86 billion in employee expenses.

The audit concluded that, in its strategic planning, Navy had identified its key workforce risks and their implications for Navy capability. To address these risks Navy had continued to adhere to its traditional ‘raise, train and sustain’ workforce strategy; developed a broad range of workforce initiatives that complemented its core approach; and sought to establish contemporary workforce management practices. However, long‑standing personnel shortfalls in a number of ‘critical’ employment categories had persisted, and Navy had largely relied on retention bonuses as a short‑ to medium‑term retention strategy.

Navy had developed a broad range of workforce initiatives, some designed specifically to address workforce shortages in its critical employment categories. To date, Navy had primarily relied on paying retention bonuses and other financial incentives; recruiting personnel with prior military experience to work in employment categories with significant workforce shortfalls; and using Navy Reserves in continuous full time roles. Ongoing work was required for Navy to firmly establish a range of promising workforce management practices, including providing the right training at the right time; more flexible approaches to managing individuals’ careers; and improving workplace culture, leadership and relationships. More flexible and tailored workforce management practices could help address the underlying causes of workforce shortfalls, particularly when the traditional approaches were not gaining sufficient traction.

The ANAO made two recommendations aimed at Navy: drawing on external human resource expertise to inform the development and implementation of its revised workforce plan; and evaluating the impact of retention bonuses on the Navy workforce to determine their future role within its overall workforce strategy.