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 audit surveyed a wide range of Commonwealth agencies' Year 2000 preparedness, their management of the problem and their application of core corporate governance principles, including risk management disciplines. The scope of the audit reflected the wide ranging ramifications of the Year 2000 problem for agencies' overall functions (whole-of-business) internally as well as in terms of external interactions. The audit objectives were to:

• assess the adequacy of agencies' planning in relation to achieving Year 2000 compliance;
• review and assess agencies' implementation, management and monitoring of Year 2000 compliance strategies;
• review agencies' strategic risk assessments in relation to the Year 2000 changeover; and
• raise surveyed agencies' and other Commonwealth agencies' awareness of the various aspects of the Year 2000 problem.

The audit examined the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission's (ATSIC's) grant management practices. The audit sought to determine if ATSIC provides fair and equal access to funding, what the risks to the grants program are, if decision-makers receive the key information they need to make informed funding decisions, and if ATSIC staff complying with grants procedures. The ANAO did not examine the appropriateness of the funding decisions made by regional councils.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration, by DoHA and the Commonwealth partners, of the 2008 and 2011 Heads of Agreement for the management, operation and funding of the Mersey Community Hospital (The Commonwealth partners for this audit were the Tasmanian Government Department of Health and Human Services and the Tasmanian Health Organisation – North West).

The objectives of this audit were to:

• assess the current status of BCM and EM arrangements in Centrelink and identify opportunities for improvement; and
• review Centrelink's response to the recommendations.

This audit examined the management of contracts for business support processes in eight Commonwealth organisations-six operating under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, and two operating under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The objectives of this audit were to:

• provide assurance on the effectiveness of the management of contracted business support processes in selected organisations; and
• identify and disseminate better practices in related contract management.

The objective of the audit was to assess the framework being put in place to manage and account for aid funds provided under the AIPRD. In particular, the audit addressed: structures for oversighting the development and delivery of the AIPRD; planning and risk management (including those relating to fraud and corruption); financial management; and arrangements for ongoing monitoring and reporting. The audit focussed on the arrangements being established to monitor, evaluate and report on AIPRD implementation, rather than the management of activities and outcomes achieved. This reflects the fact that the long lead times associated with establishing such a large programme of assistance had meant that only limited activities were underway at the time of audit fieldwork. The ANAO anticipates undertaking an audit in the future of the management of activities and outcomes achieved, when more funds have been expended. It was not the purpose of this audit to examine Australia's immediate emergency and humanitarian response to the tsunami crisis.

In 2000, the ANAO tabled Audit Report No 49 1999-2000, Indigenous Land Corporation operations and performance. The 2000 audit made nine recommendations for improvement. This follow-up audit examined the Indigenous Land Corporation's implementation of the recommendations of the 2000 audit.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether selected regulatory agencies have cost recovery procedures and practices which comply with the Government's guidelines. To address this objective, the audit assessed the management of cost recovery against the following criteria:

• regulatory agencies have clear and consistent cost recovery procedures to identify their activities and costs, and set fees and levies;
• regulatory agencies have effectively implemented their cost recovery procedures;
• regulatory agencies regularly monitor and review their cost recovery activities; and
• regulatory agencies regularly report on their cost recovery.

The ANAO conducted separate audits of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) Children and Schooling program and the Safety and Wellbeing program, the findings and conclusions of which are presented in this report. The objective of the audits was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s and the National Indigenous Australians Agency’s administration of the IAS Children and Schooling and the Safety and Wellbeing programs.