This edition of Audit Insights is targeted at Australian Government officials who have responsibility for the implementation of cyber security controls or strategy for government systems. The aim is to communicate lessons from our audit work to make it easier for people working within the Australian public sector to apply those lessons. It is drawn from audit reports tabled in 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2022–23 into management of cyber security risks.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Home Affairs’ regulation of migration agents.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency’s (TEQSA’s) regulation of higher education.

The objective of this information report is to provide transparency and insights on the governing boards of Commonwealth entities and companies and the membership of these boards.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the Department of Social Services' (DSS) administration of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), with a focus on the assessment of applications, and management of reserved allocations.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of entities’ implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s quarterly performance report as a mechanism to inform senior stakeholders about risks and issues in the delivery of capability to the Australian Defence Force.

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 objective of the audit was to assess whether the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) had complied with gifts, benefits and hospitality requirements.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the Department of Home Affairs’ procurement process for the Permissions Capability employed open and effective competition and achieved value for money, consistent with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.