In a military context, individual readiness refers to the ability of an individual member to be deployed, within a specified notice period, on operations, potentially in a combat environment, to perform the specific skills in which he or she has been trained. Individual readiness is the foundation on which military preparedness is built. Maintenance of a specified level of individual readiness in peacetime (along with other factors such as equipment readiness and collective training) influences the speed with which personnel can deploy on operations. The objective of this audit is to ensure that members can be deployed on operations, potentially in a combat environment, to perform their specific skills within a notice period of 30 days.

The objective of the current audit was to assess Army's progress in implementing the ANAO recommendations and to examine and assess any developments in relation to AIRN since the 1999?2000 audit report and the 2001 JCPAA report. Army updated AIRN policy in 2001 and 2004, and the ANAO has assessed, where appropriate, the implementation of the 1999?2000 audit recommendations for these two policy reissues.

The objective of this audit was to examine whether Army effectively administers the Army Individual Readiness Notice to support the achievement of its purpose.

The audit examined the relationship between the strategic guidance and capabilities provided by Army, through analysis of the Army capability management and reporting framework. The objectives of the audit were to: Assess Army capability management and reporting processes; determine whether these processes efficiently and effectively manage resources to provide Army capability; and accurately indicate the capability provided by Army.

The Navy Operational Readiness audit examined the systems that Navy uses to manage readiness and concludes coverage of Navy: readiness organisation and management structures (as well as the interface between these systems and Defence enabling operations); management and maintenance of operational readiness (covering personnel, collective training and other components of operational readiness); and readiness performance information processes. The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to Parliament concerning the progress that Navy has made in the development of operational readiness management and evaluation systems and to identify areas for improvement in these systems.

The objective of this audit was to assess Army's progress in addressing the issues previously identified in Defence reviews and ANAO audits as affecting the Army Reserve's capability; and Identify the extent that the Army Reserve is capable of contributing to contemporary Australian Defence Force capability requirements through fulfilling its assigned roles and tasks.

The objective of the ANAO audit was to identify possible areas for improvement in the Australian Defence Force's management of its Reserve forces. The audit focused on major aspects of the Reserves including roles and tasks, force structure, capability, training, individual readiness, equipment, facilities, recruitment, retention, conditions of service and administration. The audit covered the Australian Naval Reserve, the Australian Army Reserve and the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve. However, due to its size and cost, the Army Reserve was a major focus of the audit activity.

The objective of this audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s management of explosive ordnance by the end users of this materiel in Air Force, Army and Navy (the Services). In particular, the focus was on the effectiveness of arrangements for the oversight and physical control of explosive ordnance once it is issued to Service units.

The audit reviewed Defence’s policies, procedures, processes and inventory management systems for explosive ordnance at the unit level in the ADF, from receipt and storage through to the use or return of explosive ordnance.The audit also examined the relationship between the management of explosive ordnance at the unit level and the Explosive Ordnance Services Contract and, where relevant, the regional Garrison Support Services (GSS) Contracts.

The audit reviewed the High Wealth Individuals Taskforce, a comprehensive compliance program with the Australian Taxation Office. The objective of the audit was to examine and report on the management and operations of the taskforce. In doing so, the audit reviewed the Australian Taxation Office's own evaluation of the taskforce and assessed whether, and to what extent, the taskforce delivered the outcomes specified by the Government.

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.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2018. The report addresses all applicable obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act); the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (PGPA Rule); the Auditor-General Act 1997; the performance measures set out in the outcome and programs framework in the ANAO’s 2017–18 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) and the ANAO 2017–18 Corporate Plan and annual reporting requirements set out in other relevant legislation.

The objective of the audit was to provide an independent assurance on the effectiveness of Defence and DMO's management of the acquisition of the ASLAV capability to Army. The audit examined the initial capability requirements and approval process, the contract negotiation process, and the management of the Project and Contracts by DMO.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence is effectively managing the delivery of health services to ADF personnel in Australia (chiefly Garrison Health Services).

The objective of the audit was to examine processes used by Defence and the DMO to procure explosive ordnance for the ADF, with an emphasis on Army requirements. The audit reviewed the extent to which the DMO effectively translated the explosive ordnance requirements of the ADF, and particularly of Army, into procurement and through life support arrangements.

The report summarises the audit and other related activities of the ANAO in the period January to June 2001. Key issues arising from performance audits tabled in this period are summarised against ANAO themes of:

• corporate governance including human resource management, financial management, and performance information;
• service delivery including the impact of e-government;
• procurement and contract management; and
• information technology.

Appendix 1 of the Activity Report provides a short summary of each of the performance audits tabled between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2001.

The second audit, which is the subject of this report, is a broader and more in-depth cross-portfolio audit. Its objective was to assess:

• the planning and delivery of capital works projects by proponent agencies;
• the extent to which projects have delivered on what was intended; and
• the extent to which proponent agencies have complied with the requirements of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and approved procedures.

The objective of the audit was to report on the effectiveness of Defence’s approach to the acceptance into service of Navy capability, and to identify where better practice may be used by CDG, DMO and Navy.

The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s implementation of reforms to capability development since the introduction of the two-pass process for government approval of capability projects and government’s acceptance of the reforms recommended by the Mortimer Review. The scope of this audit included the requirements phase and, to a limited extent, the acquisition phase of major capability development projects, focusing upon changes flowing from the major reforms.

The ANAO’s performance audit program is one of the main assurance functions of the Auditor-General. The purpose of this information report was to provide analysis of 2023–24 performance audits.

This report summarises audit and other related activities of the Australian National Audit Office in the period January to June 2000.

The objective of this report is to provide the Auditor-General’s independent assurance over the status of selected Major Projects, as reflected in the Project Data Summary Sheets (PDSSs) prepared by the DMO, and the Statement by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) DMO. Assurance from the ANAO’s review of the preparation of the PDSSs by the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is conveyed in the Auditor-General’s Independent Review Report, prepared pursuant to the endorsed Guidelines, contained in Part 3.

The objective of this report is to provide comprehensive information on the status of selected Major Projects, as reflected in the Project Data Summary Sheets prepared by the DMO, and the Statement by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the DMO, and including the ANAO’s review of the preparation of the PDSSs by the DMO.

The objective of this performance audit was to assess the effectiveness and consistency of risk management processes undertaken by the Australian Taxation Office in administering individual taxpayer refunds.

The report summarises performance audit, financial statement audit and other related activities for the ANAO for the period July to December 2003. The key issues arising from performance audits tabled in this period are summarised against the ANAO themes. The report also summarises financial audits and other financial audit activities conducted by the ANAO during the period July to December 2003. It discusses significant issues such as the: consolidated financial statements and the final budget outcome; harmonisation of Australian Generally accepted accounting practices and Government Finance Statistics; adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards; timing for Financial Statements Preparation; and the audit of the CFS 2002-03.

This first Assurance Report on the status of selected Defence equipment acquisition projects, which has the support of the Parliament and the Government, represents a substantial step towards improving transparency and public accountability in major Defence procurement projects. It is the pilot of an annual Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Major Projects Report, and was developed in conjunction with the DMO. It covers the cost, schedule and capability progress achieved by nine DMO projects, which had an approved budget totalling $13.535 billion as at 30 June 2008.

This report is organised into three parts. Part 1 comprises an ANAO overview and Auditor–General's Foreword. Part 2 comprises the Major Projects Report prepared by DMO, including an overview reflecting DMO's perspective on their business and on the nine projects included in the. Part 3 incorporates the Auditor-General's Review Report, the statement by the CEO DMO, and the information prepared by DMO in the form of standardised Project Data Summary Sheets covering each of the nine pilot projects.

In the next 12 months, the ANAO will review 15 DMO projects planned for inclusion in the 2008-09 DMO Major Projects Report, with the number of projects rising to 30 projects in subsequent years. The ANAO will also work with DMO to refine the approach adopted for providing assurance on each project's progress toward achieving Final Operational Capability. The ANAO will also consider the inclusion of an analysis of each project's emerging trends, as appropriate, to complement DMO's intention to provide improved analysis of project management performance regarding all projects included in the Major Projects Report.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Defence’s monitoring of the implementation of ANAO and internal audit recommendations. The audit also examined a sample of ANAO and internal audit recommendations—reported as being complete by Defence—to assess the extent to which these recommendations had been implemented by Defence.

The audit objective was to provide independent assurance to the Parliament on the effectiveness of Australian Public Service organisations in the use and management of the HRIS to satisfy mandatory reporting requirements, as well as provide meaningful information to management. The audit also considered the use of employee self service facilities offered by the HRIS, which has the capacity to provide staff with access to their personal information, reduce manual processing and streamline processing.

The objective of the audit is to assess the effectiveness of the ADF’s mechanisms for learning from its military operations and exercises. In particular, the audit focused on the systems and processes the ADF uses for identifying and acting on lessons, and for evaluating performance. The ANAO also examined the manner in which information on lessons is shared within the ADF, with other relevant government agencies, and with international organisations. Reporting to Parliament was also considered.

The objective of the audit was to assess the progress of the M113 Upgrade Project (Defence Project: Land 106), including progress in the development of operational capability resulting from the introduction of the upgraded vehicles into service. The high-level audit criteria used to assess the project’s progress and Defence’s effectiveness in administering the M113 Upgrade Project were:

• the degree to which the schedule for the production and delivery of upgraded M113 vehicles to Defence had been recovered in accordance with Defence’s response to the 2008–09 audit report and contractual requirements, as negotiated over the life of the contract;
• Defence’s measurement and allocation of the total cost of the upgrade project; and
• the development of capability arising from the upgrade project.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2010. It includes a foreword by the Auditor-General, an overview including the role and responsibilities and vision of the Office, a report on performance, details about management and accountability, and the financial results.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2004. It includes highlights and areas of focus for the year; an introduction by the Auditor-General; an overview of the report; a report on performance; details about management and accountability, and the financial statement for the year.

The objectives of this audit were to assess the progress of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project against stated schedule, cost and technical performance objectives; and Defence Materiel Organisation's (DMO's) progress in implementing the recommendations and addressing the findings of ANAO Audit Report No. 3 2005–06, Management of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project.

The Service Chiefs of Navy, Army and Air Force are accountable to the Chief of the Defence Force for the way that equipment is used by their Service. They are also accountable for the safety, fitness for service and environmental compliance of the equipment. The audit report deals with the way that the Service Chiefs are assured of the safety and suitability for service of the Australian Defence Force's (ADF's) ordnance systems. Ordnance systems include munitions such as missiles, shells and mines, and the auxiliary material necessary to aim, launch and guide munitions.

This audit followed up the ANAO's 2000 performance audit report on retention of military personnel (Audit Report No.35 1999-2000 Retention of Military Personnel), which focused on examining whether ADF personnel management practices to retain personnel were commensurate with the cost of recruiting and training new personnel, or whether more cost- effective steps could be taken to reduce the separation rates of desirable personnel. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess Defence's implementation of recommendations made in the original audit report and their effectiveness in helping Defence control the flow of trained personnel from the Services.

The objective of this report is to provide a formal conclusion on the review of the Project Data Summary Sheets by the Auditor-General, including comprehensive information on the status of projects as reflected in the PDSSs prepared by the DMO.

This audit followed up the ANAO's 1997 performance audit report on ADF health services (Audit Report No.34 1996-97 Australian Defence Force Health Services), which focused on the delivery of non-operational health services to entitled members. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess Defence's implementation of recommendations made in the original audit report and their effectiveness in improving ADF health services.

The objective of this report is to provide comprehensive information on the status of projects as reflected in the Project Data Summary Sheets (PDSSs) prepared by DMO, and a review by the ANAO.

The objective of the audit was to report to Parliament on the progress Defence has made since June 2001 in implementing appropriate strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel. The audit focused on management of specialist information system skills and did not examine skills needed by users of information systems, although the latter is of obvious importance for overall performance. In June 2001, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), after reviewing the ANAO's Audit Report No. 11 Knowledge System Equipment Acquisition Projects in Defence, commented that its major concern about Defence's ability to develop a knowledge edge with adequate coherence, centred on Defence's ability to recruit, develop and retain skilled individuals needed in all parts of the DIE. The JCPAA recommended that the ANAO conduct an audit of Defence's strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel.

The audit reviewed the construction of facilities for the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence by the Defence Estate Organisation. The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and administrative effectiveness of the Organisation's project delivery function, highlighting effective practice and, where appropriate, making practical recommendations to enhance facilities project management. The main projects examined were the facilities required for the Army Presence in the North and the Russell Hill Redevelopment.

This report complements the Interim Report on Key Financial Controls of Major Entities financial statement audit report published in May 2023. It provides a summary of the final results of the audits of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Australian Government and the financial statements of 243 Australian Government entities for the period ended 30 June 2023.

The objectives of this follow-up audit were to:

• examine the ATO's implementation of the ten recommendations in The Australian Taxation Office's Management of its Relationship with Tax Practitioners (Audit Report No.19, 2002–03), having regard to any changed circumstances, or new administrative issues, affecting implementation of those recommendations; and
• identify scope for improvement in the ATO's management of its relationship with tax practitioners.

Follow up audits are recognised as an important element of the accountability processes of Commonwealth administration. Parliament looks to the Auditor General to report, from time to time, on the extent to which Commonwealth agencies have implemented recommendations of previous audit reports. Follow up audits keep Parliament informed of progressive improvements and current challenges in areas of Commonwealth administration that have previously been subject to scrutiny through performance audits.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2011. It includes a foreword by the Auditor-General, an overview including the role and vision of the Office, a report on performance, details about management and accountability, and the financial results.

The objective of the audit was to provide assurance to Parliament concerning the adequacy of Defence preparedness management systems and to identify possible areas for improvement. The audit focused on the systems and processes that Defence uses to manage preparedness. We did not review the preparedness levels of specific capabilities, nor did we cover capital acquisition processes. The audit included coverage of: - preparedness systems architecture; - control and direction of preparedness; - coordination among contributors to preparedness; and - performance management and preparedness.

The objective of this report is to provide information, prepared by both the ANAO and DMO, on the performance of major projects as well as providing the Auditor-General’s formal conclusion on the review of the Project Data Summary Sheets (PDSSs) prepared by DMO and contained in this report.

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.

Major capital equipment contributes importantly to the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to achieve the Defence mission, that is, the defence of Australia and its national interests. The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is the relatively new Defence organisation responsible for the acquisition and through-life support of Defence equipment and systems. DMO's stated purpose is to equip and sustain the ADF. In 2001-02, it will spend $2.9 billion on progressing some 270 major capital equipment acquisition projects. This preliminary study for the audit focused on DMO reporting on the status of major equipment acquisition projects.

The audit objective was to examine the effectiveness of Defence’s sustainment arrangements for Navy’s Canberra class fleet of amphibious assault ships (or LHDs).

The objective of this audit was to follow up DVA's implementation of the recommendations in Audit Report No. 44, 2000-01, Information Technology in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The ANAO made two recommendations in the report (the second having five parts). The recommendations addressed the monitoring of IT changes; IT performance information; information systems model documentation; and the facilitation of the interpretation of performance information.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) had appropriately managed the procurement of garrison support and welfare services at offshore processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (Manus Island); and whether the processes adopted met the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs) including consideration and achievement of value for money.

The audit objective was to review the effectiveness of the Department of Defence’s (Defence) arrangements for delivering selected non-platform sustainment.

The audit examined the range of support made available to ADF personnel making the transition from military to civilian life, the extent to which the assistance is utilised, the cost to Defence of such assistance and the relevant responsibilities of those who deliver assistance.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence is effectively managing the EO Services Contract.

The audit focused mainly on Defence's contract management framework, including the arrangements to monitor the contractor’s performance in delivering services under the contract. The audit also examined the processes used by Defence to develop the current version of the contract and the extent to which the revised contract, as negotiated in 2006, provides an assurance of better value for money when compared to the original contract signed in 2001.

The objective of the audit was to provide an independent assurance on the effectiveness of the management of the upgrade of the M113 fleet for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The audit sought to identify the initial capability requirements and approval process; analyse the contract negotiation process; and examine the management of the project and contracts.

The audit objective was to assess the Department of Defence’s progress in delivering Multi-Role Helicopters (MRH90 aircraft) to the ADF through AIR 9000 Phases 2, 4 and 6, within approved cost, schedule and performance parameters.

The objective of the performance audit was to report to Parliament our assessment as to how well the ATO manages and uses the AIIR data in taxation administration. The ANAO considered the following four key areas in addressing the audit objective. 1. Governance arrangements within the ATO, focussing on whole of ATO and whole-of-government aspects of the AIIR data, as distinct from solely business line applications. 2. Receipt of AIIR data and how well the ATO facilitates the collection of complete and valid AIIR data from investment bodies 3. Management of AIIR data through the construction by the ATO of valid entity records by using the AIIR data in conjunction with existing ATO client identification master files. 4: Use of the AIIR data on a systematic basis to inform active compliance activities.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of monitoring arrangements (by the Accreditation Agency) and compliance activities (by DoHA) put in place to achieve residential aged care homes’ compliance with the Accreditation Standards and their other, related, responsibilities under the Act and its associated instruments.

The ANAO’s assessment considered whether:

— a sector-wide compliance strategy was in place and aligned with effective monitoring and compliance activities at the operational level;
— there was a clear articulation of the separat but complementary roles and responsibilities of DoHA and the Accreditation Agency; and
— performance information gathered by both agencies to support public reporting and business improvements was useful and enabled comparison of performance over time.

This report complements the Interim Report on Key Financial Controls of Major Entities financial statement audit report published in June 2024. It provides a summary of the final results of the audits of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Australian Government and the financial statements of Australian Government entities for the period ended 30 June 2024. 

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Defence's planning and administrative arrangements to support the provision of emergency Defence Assistance to the Civil Community (DACC).

The objective of this audit was to examine the efficiency and economy of the Department of Defence’s management of its general stores inventory.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of Defence’s management of the acquisition of medium and heavy vehicles, associated modules and trailers for the Australian Defence Force.