The Auditor-General responded on 29 March 2019 to correspondence from Ms Cathy McGowan AO MP dated 5 March 2019, requesting that the Auditor-General investigate the conduct of a range of parties in relation to the announcement of grants under Round 3, Building Better Regions Fund. 

The Auditor-General responded on 17 June 2021 to correspondence from the Hon Mark Dreyfus QC, MP dated 21 May 2021, requesting that the Auditor-General conduct an investigation to examine how part-time members of the Social Services and Child Support Division and “sessional part-time members” in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are being remunerated. 

The Auditor-General provided a follow-up response to the Hon Mark Dreyfus QC, MP on 17 December 2021. 

The Auditor-General responded on 10 May 2018 to correspondence from Senators Patrick, Griff, Hanson-Young and Bernardi, Ms Rebekha Sharkie MP and the Hon. Tony Burke MP dated 24 April 2018, requesting that the Auditor-General conduct an investigation to examine the purchases of water for environmental flows in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Auditor-General provided a follow-up response on 29 April 2019. 

The Auditor-General responded on 13 April 2022 to correspondence from Mr Adam Bandt MP dated 24 March 2022, requesting that the Auditor-General conduct an investigation to examine the integrity of carbon credit methodology determinations made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, and the administration of the Act by the Clean Energy Regulator. 

The Auditor-General responded on 18 November 2019 to correspondence from Mr Andrew Giles MP, requesting that the Auditor-General conduct an investigation to examine the effectiveness of the procurement to deliver a new global visa processing system.

The corporate plan is the ANAO’s primary planning document. Our strategic planning process allows us to continually improve practices and capabilities to demonstrate value in the delivery of services to the Parliament. The corporate plan is complemented by the annual audit work program, which reflects the ANAO’s audit strategy for the coming year.

The audit objective was to examine the selected entities’ effectiveness in implementing entity-wide fraud control arrangements, including compliance with the requirements of the 2011 Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines (2011 Guidelines), and the overall administration of the fraud control framework by the Attorney-General’s Department.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office’s administration of annual compliance arrangements with large corporate taxpayers.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness and value for money of Defence’s acquisition of light protected vehicles, under Defence project Land 121 Phase 4.

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.