The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of health services to the Australian Defence Force Regular forces. Audit criteria were developed which examined health services policy and strategic planning, resource management, the tri-Service provision of medical, dental and other health care, the operation of and planning for major medical facilities, health care management information systems, occupational health and safety and the supply of health materiel.

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 audit reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of Defence's management of Naval Aviation Force (NAF) in achieving its required capability within budgeted resources. The objectives of the audit were to assess whether planning, management and resource allocation mechanisms and practices for NAF were conducive to achieving the latter's objectives in a cost-effective manner.

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.

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 audit reviewed the planning and management of the Australian Defence Force deployments to East Timor, including the support of those deployments. The audit focused on planning for the deployments and the role of Australia as the lead nation in the International Force in East Timor (INTERFET); and financial, personnel, logistic and other systems used to deploy and sustain Australia's military presence in East Timor.

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 the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative arrangements for the provision of food to the Australian Defence Force and identify possible areas for improvement. The audit criteria addressed the adequacy of policy guidance, planning, performance information and risk management in all areas of ADF food provisioning.

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 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.