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 examine if AFMA is effectively undertaking its regulatory compliance responsibilities in respect of domestic fishing in Commonwealth fisheries. Particular emphasis was
given to:

• the licensing of fishers and related transaction processing;
• the management of fishing quota by concession holders and AFMA; AFMA's domestic compliance monitoring and
• enforcement activities; and the governance arrangement for domestic fishing compliance.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of DIISTRE’s administration of the Research Block Grant schemes. The department’s performance was assessed against the following criteria:

• the schemes are effectively planned and administered;
• the processes and systems used for calculating and distributing funds reflect the allocation criteria specified for each scheme; and
• compliance with scheme guidelines is monitored and scheme performance and contribution to the broader goals of the RBG program is assessed.

Given the significant expenditure associated with the Super Seasprites, and the problems that the Project had encountered over some time, the ANAO had commenced this performance audit prior to the Government's decision to cancel the Project. The focus of the audit was on Defence's and DMO's administration of the Project. In light of the Government's decision to cancel the Project, the objective of the audit was revised to place greater emphasis on those issues that resulted in the failure of the Project to provide the required capability, and highlighting project management lessons for major Defence acquisitions going forward.Accordingly the audit objective was to:

• identify those factors that contributed to the on-going poor performance of the Project;
• outline measures taken by Defence and DMO in seeking to overcome issues encountered by the Project, and key lessons arising from this project for the benefit of major acquisitions projects generally; and
• determine the capability and cost implications of a project that failed to deliver to expectations.

The objective of the audit was to assess whether selected entities had appropriately justified the use of limited tender procurement and whether processes adopted met the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.

The objective of the Risk Framework and associated programs of risk management activities is to support effective risk management across all ANAO operations.

The objectives of this audit were to:

• examine the effectiveness of ASIC's processes for receiving reports of suspected breaches of the Corporations Act; and
• assess the efficiency with which statutory reports are referred and investigated by ASIC.

The audit commenced in February 2006. ANAO undertook an assessment of ASIC's processes for receiving and referring for investigation statutory reports. ANAO also undertook a detailed examination of a random sample of 416 statutory reports received by ASIC in the period 2002–03 to 2004–05.

The audit scope did not extend to the role of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting offences referred to it by ASIC.

The audit objective was to assess DoHA's administration of prudential arrangements for the protection of residential aged care accommodation bonds.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s management of Commonwealth fisheries.

The audit objective was to assess the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's effectiveness in managing complaints.