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.

The ANAO corporate plan is the ANAO's primary planning document. It outlines our purpose; the dynamic environment in which we operate; our commitment to building capability; and the priorities, activities and performance measures by which we are held to account. This Quality Assurance Framework and Plan 2021–22 complements the corporate plan. It describes the ANAO Quality Assurance Framework and reflects the ANAO's quality assurance strategy and deliverables for the coming year.

The ANAO Quality Assurance Framework is the ANAO’s established system of quality control to provide the Auditor-General with reasonable assurance that the ANAO complies with the ANAO Auditing Standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements and reports issued by the ANAO are appropriate in the circumstances.

The Quality Assurance Strategy and Plan component of this document identifies the key activities that the ANAO conducts to provide the Auditor-General with comfort that the controls established within the Quality Assurance Framework are implemented and operating effectively.

The ANAO reports on the audit quality indicators that measure the ANAO performance against target benchmarks in the annual Audit Quality Report published on the ANAO website. The Audit Quality Report also provides transparency with respect to the processes, policies and procedures that support each element of the ANAO Quality Assurance Framework and the achievement of the quality assurance strategy and deliverables set out in the Quality Assurance Framework and Plan.

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 design and implementation of the Department of Human Services' Quality Framework.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has established effective risk management arrangements to support the implementation of the Statistical Business Transformation Program.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of Defence’s design and implementation of arrangements to select a preferred Strategic Partner for the Future Submarines Program.

The report objective is to provide the Auditor-General’s independent assurance over the status of 30 selected Major Projects, as reflected in the Statement by the Chief Executive Officer Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), and the Project Data Summary Sheets prepared by the DMO, in accordance with the Guidelines endorsed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

The purpose of this information report is to provide transparency of, and insights on, Commonwealth entities’ self-reporting of procurement contracts on AusTender. This information report is neither an audit or assurance review and presents no conclusions or opinions. The report is presented in a variety of ways, including tables, figures, and publicly available data from public sector procurement activity recorded in AusTender.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the OneSKY tender was conducted so as to provide value with public resources and achieve required timeframes for the effective replacement of the existing air traffic management platforms.

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